<%BANNER%>

EU Consumers Preferences of Fresh Citrus Fruit from Different Countries

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044266/00001

Material Information

Title: EU Consumers Preferences of Fresh Citrus Fruit from Different Countries Perception, Attitude and Willingness to Pay
Physical Description: 1 online resource (154 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Wong, Shu Sing
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitude -- country-of-origin -- fruit -- perception -- preferences -- tobit -- willingness-to-pay
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The European Union (E.U.) has a stricter pesticide use standard compared to most of the countries in the world. For instance, Carbaryl is still allowed to be used in the United States (U.S.) but it is banned in the E.U. A ban on using some type of pesticides will drive up prices and drive down yield. Consequently fruits internal and external qualities may be affected. However, the E.U. is the world largest fruit importer: the E.U. imports fruits from all over the world, particularly from the U.S., China, Israel and Spain. Because different countries have different food safety and quality standards, a better understanding of E.U. consumers' preference of fresh citrus fruit from different countries help U.S. citrus industries better develop strategies and provide products that are suitable for the E.U. competitive market. Using a consumer survey in France, this thesis determines E.U. consumers' perception, attitude, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for fresh citrus fruits from the U.S. and other citrus producing countries. Factors that have substantial impact on consumer preference are also determined. An online questionnaire collected data on E.U. consumers' perception of fruit safety, food quality, average price and demographics variable. Contingent valuation method was used to elicit E.U. consumers' WTP. Results show that consumers are willing to pay the highest premium for citrus fruit from France than other countries. Consumers' perceptions of safety concern for citrus fruit from different countries are statistically significant variables for most citrus fruit. Majority of demographics show insignificant relationship with consumers' WTP.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Shu Sing Wong.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Gao, Zhifeng.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044266:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044266/00001

Material Information

Title: EU Consumers Preferences of Fresh Citrus Fruit from Different Countries Perception, Attitude and Willingness to Pay
Physical Description: 1 online resource (154 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Wong, Shu Sing
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitude -- country-of-origin -- fruit -- perception -- preferences -- tobit -- willingness-to-pay
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The European Union (E.U.) has a stricter pesticide use standard compared to most of the countries in the world. For instance, Carbaryl is still allowed to be used in the United States (U.S.) but it is banned in the E.U. A ban on using some type of pesticides will drive up prices and drive down yield. Consequently fruits internal and external qualities may be affected. However, the E.U. is the world largest fruit importer: the E.U. imports fruits from all over the world, particularly from the U.S., China, Israel and Spain. Because different countries have different food safety and quality standards, a better understanding of E.U. consumers' preference of fresh citrus fruit from different countries help U.S. citrus industries better develop strategies and provide products that are suitable for the E.U. competitive market. Using a consumer survey in France, this thesis determines E.U. consumers' perception, attitude, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for fresh citrus fruits from the U.S. and other citrus producing countries. Factors that have substantial impact on consumer preference are also determined. An online questionnaire collected data on E.U. consumers' perception of fruit safety, food quality, average price and demographics variable. Contingent valuation method was used to elicit E.U. consumers' WTP. Results show that consumers are willing to pay the highest premium for citrus fruit from France than other countries. Consumers' perceptions of safety concern for citrus fruit from different countries are statistically significant variables for most citrus fruit. Majority of demographics show insignificant relationship with consumers' WTP.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Shu Sing Wong.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Gao, Zhifeng.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044266:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EU CONSUMERS PREFERENCES OF FRESH CITRUS FRUIT FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES: PERCEPTION, ATTITUDE AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY By SHU SING WONG A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFI LLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 S hu S ing W ong

PAGE 3

3 To my p arents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Firstly, I would like to express my utmost thanks to my thesis committee, Drs. Zhifeng Gao, Lisa House and Thomas Spreen, who offered their precious time and constructive suggestion to this paper. I specially thank Dr. Zhifeng Gao who provided assistantships for my master study and spent innumerable hours directing me to successfully complete this pr oject. Furthermore, a special thanks to Dr. House for spending time on my thesis while she was still on her vacation. I sincerely thank my mother who is in heaven. She had taught me righteousness and compassion when I was young. I thank my family with thei r persistent support both spiritually and financially. I particularly thank my wife, Lijia Shi, for her kindness and supportive words when I was down. I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to the Florida Department of Citrus (FDOC), for providing fundin g for this research project. T his thesis would not have been possible without its financial support.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 The History of Orange, Mandarin Pummelo and Grapefruit ................................ .... 13 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 14 Prob lematic Situation ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 21 Sp ecific Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 Definition of Preference ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 EU Food Labeling Law ................................ ................................ ............................ 27 Origin of EU Fresh Fruits Imports ................................ ................................ ........... 28 Fruit Quality and Safety Attribute ................................ ................................ ............ 29 Consumer Perception of Fruits Quality and Safety Study ................................ ....... 30 ................................ ............... 32 3 RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA ................................ ................................ ...... 35 Questionnaire Design ................................ ................................ ............................. 35 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 36 4 GENERAL SURVEY RESULT S ................................ ................................ ............. 39 ................................ ................................ .................. 39 ................................ ............................... 40 First Knowledge of Fruits ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 Pummelo, Grapefruit, Orange and Mandarin Consumption Patterns ...................... 42 Perception of Fresh Citrus Attributes ................................ ................................ ...... 44 Knowledge of Citrus Product Origin ................................ ................................ ........ 44 Attitudes toward the Fruit from Different Countries ................................ ................. 46 Perception of Grapefruit from Florida ................................ ................................ ...... 49 Perception of Pummelo from China ................................ ................................ ........ 49

PAGE 6

6 ................................ ................................ 50 Willingness to Pay for Fruit from Different Countries ................................ .............. 51 5 THE TOBIT MODEL ................................ ................................ ............................... 75 Method of Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ......................... 76 Definitions of Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ......... 76 Definitions of Explanatory Variables ................................ ................................ ....... 78 Description of Variables in Tobit Models ................................ ................................ 79 6 THE EMPIRICAL R ESULTS ................................ ................................ ................... 81 The U.S. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 81 Florida, U.S. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 82 France ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 83 Spain ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 84 Turkey ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 84 Israel ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 85 7 CONCLUSION S ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 93 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 93 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 94 APPENDIX QUEST IONAIRE IN ENGLISH ................................ ................................ 96 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 149 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 154

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Major producers of grapefruit, orange and mandarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) ........ 22 1 2 Top 20 citrus fruit producers in aggreg ated in 2010 ................................ .......... 22 1 3 Major export countries in grapefruit, orange and mandarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 23 1 4 Major importers of gra pefruit, orange and mandarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) ........ 23 1 5 Major importers of grapefruit (inc. pummelo), orange and mandarin in 2009 with eu 27 external trade (in 1000 MT) ................................ ............................... 24 1 6 Major importers of U.S. grapefruit, orange and mandarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 24 1 7 Major importers of Chinese pummelo orange and mandarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 25 4 1 perception of fresh fruits from different countries ................................ ................ 53 4 2 Willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) to exchange Chinese pummelo to fruits from other countries ................................ ................. 53 4 3 WTP and WTA to exchange Chinese pummelo to fruits from other countries ... 53 4 4 WTP and WTA to exchange Chinese orange to fruits from other countries ...... 54 4 5 WTP and WTA to e xchange Chinese mandarin to fruits from other countries ... 54 4 6 Unpaid work done by male and female, difference in minutes per day in 2011 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 55 4 7 Percentage of respondent in each household income category ....................... 56 4 8 Marital status of respondents in the survey relative to OECD data .................... 56 4 9 France fertility rate from 1993 to 2009 ................................ ............................... 57 4 11 Percentage of respondents in each age group ................................ ................. 58 4 1 2 Percentage of respondents in each employment category ............................... 58 4 13 Percentage of respondents in each education level ................................ ......... 59

PAGE 8

8 4 14 Pe rcentage of respondent in each household weekly spending category ........ 59 6 1 The U.S. Tobit model ................................ ................................ ......................... 87 6 2 Florida, U.S. Tobit model ................................ ................................ ................... 88 6 3 France Tobit model ................................ ................................ ........................... 89 6 4 Spain Tobit model ................................ ................................ ............................. 90 6 5 Turk ey Tobit model ................................ ................................ ........................... 91 6 6 Israel Tobit model ................................ ................................ ............................. 92

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Chine se pummelo exported to France 2002 2011 (in Tons) ............................ 26 1 2 U.S. grapefruit exported to France 2002 2011 (in Tons) ................................ .. 26 3 1 Proport ion of respondents from different France regions ................................ 38 4 1 Fruits pictures present to survey participants. A) pummelo, B) grapefruit, C) Chinese pummelo, D) mandarin and E) orange ................................ ................. 60 4 2 Percentage of consumers that is familiar with grapefruit and pummelo ............ 61 4 3 Proportion of respondents who finished the survey ................................ .......... 61 4 4 Source of information of first knowledge of pummelo ( Grapefruit and Pummelo Group ) ................................ ................................ ................................ 62 4 5 Source of information of first knowl edge of grapefruit ( Grapefruit Group ) ........ 62 4 6 Source of information of first knowledge of grapefruit ( Grapefruit and Pummelo Group ) ................................ ................................ ................................ 63 4 7 Consumption frequencies of grapefruit, orange and mandarin in the last year (Grapefruit Group ) ................................ ................................ ...................... 63 4 8 Consumption frequencies of grapefruit in the last month ( Grapefruit Group ) ... 64 4 9 Consumption frequencies of pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin in the last year (Grapefruit and Pummelo Group ) ................................ ................... 64 4 10 Consumption frequencies of pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin in the last month (Grapefruit and Pummelo Group ) ................................ ................ 65 4 11 Importance of fresh citrus attributes (Grapefruit and Pummelo Gro up ) .............. 65 4 12 Importance of fresh citrus attributes (Grapefruit Group ) ................................ ... 66 4 13 The top 10 countries, France imported orange from in 2010 ............................ 66 4 14 The top 10 countries, France imported mandarin from in 2010 ........................ 67 4 15 The top 10 countries, France imported grap efruit from in 2010 ......................... 67 4 16 Awareness of fruits from different countries (Grapefruit and Pummelo Group ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 68

PAGE 10

10 4 17 Awareness of f ruits from different countries (Grapefruit Group ) ....................... 68 4 18 Likelihood of French consumer buying fruit from different countries ................. 69 4 19 Perceived safety of fresh fruit from different countries ................................ ...... 69 4 20 Perceived overall quality of fresh fruit from different countries ......................... 70 4 21 Perceived price of fresh fruit from different countries ................................ ....... 70 4 22 mandarin ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 71 4 23 Likelihood of purchasing grapefruit from different countries ............................. 71 4 24 Likelihood of purchasing pummelo from different countries .............................. 72 4 25 ............ 72 4 26 Perceptions of Florida grapefruit ................................ ................................ ....... 73 4 27 Perceptions of pummelo from China ................................ ................................ 73 4 28 Recall fruits origin, respondents purchased last time ................................ ....... 74 4 29 Proportion of gender ................................ ................................ ......................... 74

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER of SCIENCE E U CONSUMERS PREFERENCES OF FRESH CITRUS FRUIT FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES: PERCEPTION, ATTITUDE AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY By Shu Sing Wong May 2012 Chair: Zhifeng Gao Major: Food and Resource Economics The European Union ( E.U. ) has a stricter pesticide use st andard compared to most of the countries in the world. For instance Carbaryl is still allowed to be use d in the United States ( U.S. ) but it is banned in the E.U A ban on using some type of pesticides will drive up prices and drive down yield. Consequentl y fruits internal and external qualities may be affected. However, the E.U. is the world largest fruit importer: the E.U. imports fruits from all over the world, particularly from the U.S., China, Israel and Spain. Because different countries have differen t food safety and quality standards, countries help U.S. citrus industries better develop strategies and provide products that are suitable for the E.U. competitive m arket. Using a consumer survey in France, this thesis determines E.U. to pay (WTP) for fresh citrus fruits from the U.S. and other citrus producing countries. Factors that have substantial impact on consumer preference are also determined. An safety, food quality, average price and demographics variable. Contingent valuation

PAGE 12

12 Results show t hat consumers are willing to pay the highest premium for citrus fruit from France than other countries. Consumers perceptions of safety concern for citrus fruit from different countries are statistically significant variables for most citrus fruit. Major

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The History of Orange, Mandarin Pummelo and Grapefruit The trade of citrus fruit has the highest value among all fruit crop s The top four citrus fruit variet ies in international trade include orange, mandarin, grapefruit and pummelo. Orange is one of the most common citrus fruit s It can be broadly categorized into two types, which are sour orange and sweet orange. The former one is mainly used for essential oil and the later one can be consumed in fresh form (Weiss, 1997) Although orange is a very common citrus fruit, it has a few dozen different varieties such as Homosassa, Lue Gim Gong, Parson Brown and Sunstar. One type of orange is called Mandarin orang e which is known as mandarin. Mandarin is usually consumed in plain (Morton, 1987) The color and taste of mandarin and orange are alike. However, mandarin has an easier to peel skin than orange (Morton, 1987). Mandarin varieties include Satsuma, Clementi ne, Tangerine and Tangor (Morton, 1987). Pummelo was originated from Southeast Asia. It is the largest fruit in the citrus family. In general, pummelo is about 15 to 2 2 centimeters in diameter and weighs about 1 to 2 kilograms. The skin color of pummelo i s greenish yellow when it is ripe and the taste is sweet (San Floridata 200 9 ) Grapefruit is a hybrid of pummelo and orange. Therefore, it has both orange and pummelo attributes. Grapefruit is smaller than pummelo but bigger than orange. Grapefruit has m any varieties such as Duncan, Foster, Marsh, Oroblanco, Paradise Navel, Redblush, Star Ruby, Sweetie, Thompson and Triumph (Morton, 1987) Different kinds of grapefruit have different size and weight. Unlike pummelo, grapefruit have multiple colors dependi ng on the cultivar. For instance the peel of white seedless

PAGE 14

14 grapefruit is yellow while the peel of Ruby Red Grapefruit is yellow with pink to red blush area (Miller and McDonald, 1991). Consumers sometimes confuse with pummelo and grapefruit because of th e common attribute s between the two fruits In the same way, there is confusion between tangerine and mandarin. Both orange and mandarin have about the same size, color and taste. As a result, most of current data of grapefruit are in fact pummelo and grap efruit data. Also data of mandarin is always used interchangeably with tangerine Background T he U.S. and China are two of the major citrus fruit producers and exporters In 2011, the U.S. was the largest orange producer and second largest grapefruit pro ducer, while China was the largest grapefruit and mandarin producer and the second largest orange producer. It should be noted that most of the grapefruit produced in China is usually pummelo, although it is classified as grapefruit. In 2011, the U.S. grap efruit, orange and mandarin production was 1041, 8150 and 616 thousand metric tons (MT) respectively and China produced grapefruit orange and mandarin 3 000, 6 600 and 13 800 thousand MT respectively ( Table 1 1 ) In fact, China was the largest citrus fr uit producer in 2010. China produced about 24 million tons of citrus fruit, followed by Brazil, India and the United States of America (Table 1 2 ). Furthermore, Chinese mandarin production accounted for two third s of world mandarin production in 2011 ( USDA FAS 2012). Table 1 2 shows o th er major citrus fruit producers and its aggregated production. In terms of citrus fruit export, South Africa and the U.S. were the largest grapefruit exporters but South Africa was also the largest orange expo rter in 2011. China ranked the fifth and the ninth largest for grapefruit and orange exports. Not and the U.S. was the

PAGE 15

15 eighth largest exporter of mandarin In 2011, the U.S. exported grapefruit, orange and mandarin 230, 710 and 55 thousand MT respectively, while China exported grapefruit, orange and mandarin 72, 100 and 580 thousand MT respectively (Table 1 3 ). Table 1 3 shows major countries or region that exported grapefruit, orange a nd mandarin. It has to be mentioned that a major exporter may not necessary produce the fruit itself. For instance However, Hong Kong only produces small amount of fruits. Almost all fruits exported from Hong Kong were imported from somewhere else. The E.U. and orange importer and the second largest mandarin importer The E.U. is also the largest grapefruit trading partner of the United States. Inter estingly, Russia was the largest tangerines and mandarins importing country which imported 730 thousand MT in 2011 (USDA FAS 2012). In 2011, EU 27 imported grapefruit (including pummelo), orange and mandarin 360, 700 and 350 thousand MT from the world ( Ta ble 1 4 ) Among the E.U. Netherlands, France and Germany are the three largest orange, mandarin and grapefruit importers In 2009, Netherland was the world second largest importer of grapefruit ( 166,563 MT) and orange (476,152 MT) and the fifth largest im porter of mandarin (190,392 MT) France was the world fourth largest importer of grapefruit and the third largest importer of orange and mandarin, while Germany was the world fifth largest importer of grapefruit, the largest importer of orange and the seco nd largest importer of mandarin in 2009 (Table 1 5 ). Table 1 6 s hows the top 10 importer s of the U.S. grapefruit, orange and mandarin Except for Netherlands and Belgium w hich were the third and seventh major partner s of the U.S. mandarin industry, n one of the E.U. countries were the top 10

PAGE 16

16 buyers of the U.S. orange and mandarin U.S. orange s and mandarin s are mainly exported to Canada and Asian countries such as China and Japan. Obviously, the E.U. is a very important market to the U.S. grapefruit industry Although China exported less orange and grapefruit in 2011 than it did in 2010, e is still growing In 2011, China exported 72 thousand MT of fresh grapefruit, 100 thousand MT of orange and 580 thousand MT of fr esh mandarin. In fact the grapefruit currently exported from China is another citrus variety similar to grapefruit call ed pummelo. This is because grapefruit production is very few in China. Table 1 7 shows the major export destination for Chinese pummelo orange and mandarin in 2011 None of the top ten buyers of Chinese orange and mandarin were European country. However, t he top ten buyers of Chinese pummelo were Netherlands Russia, Romania Hong Kong, Lithuania Canada, Poland Belgium France and Ukra ine. Of those ten countries or regions six of them are member of the E.U. (Table 1 7 ) Particularly in France, the amount of Chinese pummelo exported to France increased over 95 fold since they were first introduced in 2002 (Figure 1 1) In comparison, th e amount of the U.S. grapefruit exported to France declined to just above half of the 2002 level ( Figure 1 2 ). With the rapid development of citrus industry in China, the market share of the U.S. citrus fruit in the E U may be gradually eroded by China. T he market share of Chinese pummelo as well as other citrus fruits, may keep increasing if E.U. consumers do not distinguish citrus fruits from different countries. Therefore, an understanding of E U and WTP for fre sh citrus from different countries is very important.

PAGE 17

17 In the E.U. food industry, there is topical interest in food quality. Before 2009, for the 36 types of fruit and vegetable products, the sales could be banned if their shape, size and appearance did no t meet the 'beauty pageant' standards. Though the ban was lifted for most products now, 10 fruit and vegetable products, including citrus fruit, are still subjected to the European Commission (EC) strict regulations, unless those unshaped fruits and vegeta bles are sold for processing ( Dailymail.com ). In addition, the law on maximum residue level (MRL) of pesticides is still unchanged. In addition to the strict regulations on fresh fruits and vegetables, the E U consumer expectation for fruit quality is increasing. Particularly consumers in developed q uality differentiation of fruits becomes necessary (Grunert, 2005). Internal quality factors, such as taste, flavor, and texture as well as external quality factors, such as color, shape, and size, are both important for repeated purchases ( McCluskey et al 2007 ). Because of the difference in culture and economic development, consumers in different countries of the E.U. have different preferences for sensory characteris tics of fruit. For instance, French consumers prefer sweeter grapefruit while German consumers pr efer fuller flavored grapefruit (Rozenbaum, 1988). Other than the physical attributes of fruits, other attributes such as credence attributes like production m ethod and country of origin (COO) sh fruits (Heuvel et al ., 2007). Studies have shown that consumers are willing to pay premium for fruit qualities. However, it may not be the case that all fruit qual ities can always command price premiums from consumers. For instance there are two schools of thought about quality;

PAGE 18

18 those are holistic approach and excellence approach. Holistic approach suggests that a product has all desirable property and excellence approach suggests that a product have a desirable property but consumer may not view it as beneficial property. Convenience is belonging to the excellence approach. Consumer may regard convenience as a desirable property of fruits. However, consumer s may p erceive that 1998 and Olsen, 2002). In c ontrast, food safety is belonging to holistic approach. A c onsumer believes safety is a desirable attribute to some extent. Safety and quality perception are connected to fruit choice and consumer demand. Different consumers respond quality attributes differently safety and quality claim are among the key fruit attribu te that will determine whethe r the fruits will be purchased. Enhancing the competitiveness of the U.S. fresh fruit in the E.U. market is important because the U.S. has been experienced trade deficit in fresh and processed fruits and vegetables for a decade In 2009, the trade deficit in fresh and processed fruits was $6 billion. Although the U.S. fruits export increases every year, the amount of fruits imported increases at a faster speed ( Congressional Research Service 2010 ). competitiveness are always the primary ob jective of the U.S. farm policy (U.S. Farm bill 2008). To compete with other fruit export countries in the E.U. market, the U.S. citrus the E.U.

PAGE 19

19 in order to target specific consumer groups. Consumers rather than the fruit growers will determine whether a fruit will be success ful or failure in the markets ( Shewfelt, 2006 ). An understanding of E U from the U.S. and competing countries would help producers, mark eters and policy makers better formulate strategies and policies to promote the U.S. fruits in the E.U. markets. For instan ce a marketer could place an emphasis on the COO attribute i n their marketing plan or emphasis the high safety standard of U.S. prod uce. Policy maker s might better allocate resources by enhancing inspection for fruit from less safe countries and lessening inspection for fruit from safer countries. In addition, determining the COO images of citrus fruits from different countries also he lp better understanding France, this study determin toward citrus from major citrus producing countries. In addition, the study examines whether primary shoppers in France are willing to pay price premiums for fresh fruits from different countri es, particularly the fresh citrus fruits from Florida U.S The information from this study should provide useful information to citrus industries in the United States to help them compete more eff ectively with other countries in the E.U. markets. Problema tic Situation The U.S. grapefruit export s to the E.U. have decline d for several years. In the meanwhile Chinese pummelo export to the E.U. has been gradually increasing for a decade. Determining the reasons that cause this change is important for the U.S. citrus

PAGE 20

20 industry to compete in the E.U. market. The key question is whether consumers consider fruits from the United States and other countries as the same quality, and what is the advantage of the U.S. citrus fruits? So far the analysis of E U response to COO is absent. U.S. citrus fruit producers are uncertain of E U consumer perception of the U.S. fruits and how much E U consumers are willing to pay for the superior quality fruits. Excessive quality control, in term of lower pesticide resid ual level and better fruit appearance can improve fruit quality, but at the same time will have inverse impact on producer incomes and industry profits. In addition, fruit safety and fruits. However, the impacts of factors that determine on WTP remain unknown as a result of lack of empirical information. Obtain ing such information is important for U.S. fruit producers because the E U fruit market is an intensely competitive market. Su ch information may also be interest to people who is involved in the fruit business channel from producers to final consumers. This is especially the case in the current E U economy in which consumers are reluctant or unable to spend on goods other than n ecessities. Competition between French domestic fruit and imported fruits is getting severe. This research was conducted such that more appropriate strategies such as product differentiation of the U.S. produce can be developed to target the potential nich e market. Problem Statement The information on the premium that French primary shoppers are willing to pay for fresh citrus fruits produced in China Brazil, France, Israel, Spain, the U.S. and Turkey is unknown. Furthermore, it is not known whether French

PAGE 21

21 the U.S. produce is fruit specific. In addition, little is known about the impacts of factors Research Objectives The primary goal of this research is to identify E.U. consume s and attitude s toward fruits from different countries. In addition, an analysis is conducted regarding the existence of price premium s for fruit s from different countries based on pummelo, o range and mandarin. Specific Objectives 1. To determine how French consumers perceived quality and safety of citrus fruits from majo r citrus production countries. 2. To determine French primary shoppers WTP for fruits produced in major citrus production countri es. 3. Identify the important factors that have signi ficant impacts on consumer WTP.

PAGE 22

22 Table 1 1 .Major p roducers of g rapefruit, o range and m andarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) Grapefruit Orange Mandarin Rank Country MT Country MT Country MT 1 China 3,000 Brazil 18,155 China 13,800 2 United States 1,041 United States 8,150 EU 27 3,135 3 South Africa 360 China 6,600 Japan 1,015 4 Mexico 300 EU 27 6,355 Turkey 875 5 Turkey 240 Mexico 3,200 Morocco 765 6 Israel 205 Egypt 2,350 Korea, South 64 5 7 Argentina 130 Turkey 1,730 United States 616 8 EU 27 114 South Africa 1,400 Argentina 350 9 Morocco 949 Israel 169 10 Argentina 750 South Africa 160 Source: United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service T able 1 2. Top 20 c itrus f ruit p roducers in aggregated in 2010 Rank Country Tons Rank Country Tons 1 China 23,938,044 11 Iran 2,619,258 2 Brazil 21,327,480 12 Argentina 2,559,423 3 India 10,391,600 13 Pakistan 2,203,000 4 The U.S.A. 9,985,530 14 South A frica 2,127,750 5 Mexico 6,857,006 15 Indonesia 2,032,670 6 Spain 5,456,400 16 Morocco 1,359,729 7 Turkey 3,572,376 17 Colombia 1,257,839 8 Egypt 3,522,958 18 Thailand 1,124,213 9 Nigeria 3,488,400 19 Syrian 1,071,300 10 Italy 3,190,790 20 Algeria 99 8,640 Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistical Databases

PAGE 23

23 Table 1 3 Major e xport countries in g rapefruit, o range and m andarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) Grapefruit Orange Mandarin Rank Country MT Country MT Rank C ountry MT 1 South Africa 230 South Africa 1,015 China 580 2 United States 230 Egypt 900 Turkey 450 3 Turkey 180 United States 710 EU 27 360 4 Israel 85 Turkey 350 Morocco 349 5 China 72 EU 27 320 South Africa 125 6 EU 27 20 Morocco 215 Ar gentina 105 7 Mexico 15 Argentina 120 Israel 70 8 Argentina 10 Australia 100 United States 55 9 Hong Kong 7 China 100 Korea, South 3 10 Hong Kong 75 Japan 2 Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service Table 1 4 Major importers of grapefruit, orange and mandarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) Grapefruit Orange Mandarin Rank Country MT Country MT Country MT 1 EU 27 360 EU 27 700 Russia 730 2 Japan 163 Canada 210 EU 27 350 3 Russia 125 Hong Kong 205 Ukraine 190 4 Canada 46 Korea, South 145 Indonesia 180 5 Hong Kong 18 Japan 121 Canada 125 6 China 15 China 110 Malaysia 65 7 Mexico 8 Costa Rica 70 Philippines 40 8 Switzerland 7 Guatemala 40 Japan 19 9 Turkey 5 Australia 24 China 16 10 Argentina 1 Argentina 1 Turkey 5 Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service

PAGE 24

24 Table 1 5 Major importers of grapefruit (inc. pummelo), orange and mandarin in 2009 with eu 27 external trade (in 1000 MT) Grape fruit Orange Mandarin Rank Country MT Country MT Country MT 1 EU(27)ex.int 400 EU(27)ex.int 848 Russian 533 2 Japan 175 Germany 511 EU(27)ex.int 376 3 Netherlands 167 Netherlands 476 Germany 369 4 Russian 91 France 451 France 328 5 Fr ance 85 Russian 444 United Kingdom 261 6 Germany 82 Saudi Arabia 304 Netherlands 190 7 Belgium 54 United Kingdom 278 Indonesia 189 8 Canada 47 United Arab Emirates 216 Poland 156 9 Poland 44 Italy 195 Ukraine 136 10 United Kingdom 35 Canad a 186 Canada 124 Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistical Databases Table 1 6. Major importers of U.S. grapefruit, orange and mandarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) Grapefruit Orange Mandarin Rank Country MT Countr y MT Country MT 1 Japan 107.2 Canada 166.7 Canada 25.1 2 Canada 38.2 Korea, South 138.6 Japan 19.0 3 France 23.8 Japan 95.7 Netherlands 4.9 4 Netherlands 16.1 Hong Kong 95.3 Australia 2.4 5 Korea South 12.2 China 57.1 New Zealand 0.8 6 Belgium 5.0 Malaysia 38.9 Mexico 0.7 7 United Kingdom 3.8 Australia 24.8 Belgium 0.7 8 Sweden 3.2 Singapore 22.2 China 0.3 9 Germany 2.8 Mexico 18.9 Col ombia 0.3 10 Taiwan 2.7 India 14.6 Hong Kong 0.2 Source: Based on World Trade Atlas data

PAGE 25

25 Table 1 7 Major importers of Chinese pummelo orange and mandarin in 2011 (in 1000 MT) Pummelo Orange Mandarin Rank Country MT Country MT Country MT 1 Netherlands 39.1 Vietnam 27.6 Indonesia 175.0 2 Russia 29.6 Malaysia 14.8 Vietnam 166.4 3 Romania 5.6 Hong Kong 14.2 Malaysia 113.4 4 Hong Kong 4.0 Russia 10.1 Russia 65.4 5 Lithuania 2.6 United Arab Emirates 4.4 Thailand 50.4 6 Canada 2.6 Indonesia 4.1 Philippines 40.8 7 Poland 2.6 United Arab 2.6 Canada 26.1 8 Belgium 2.2 Thailand 1.4 Bangladesh 18.4 9 France 2.0 Macau 1.2 Kazakhstan 15.0 10 Ukraine 1.7 Singapore 0.8 Singapore 10.2 Source: Based on World Trade Atlas data

PAGE 26

26 Figure 1 1. Chi nese pummelo exported to France 2002 2011 (in Tons) Source: Based on World Trade Atlas data Figure 1 2. U.S. grapefruit exported to France 2002 2011 (in Tons) Source: Based on World Trade Atlas data 21 84 703 1034 213 52 836 1218 1463 2006 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 45156 40423 32292 15529 20536 25252 30615 22687 21306 23848 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

PAGE 27

27 CH APTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Definition of Preference ars. In psychology, the preference attitude of a person who favors a particular set of objects in the decision making process ( Lichtenstein & Slovic, 2006 ). The other typical definition of preference can be conceived as an evaluative judgment such as favor or disfavor of an object (Scherer, 2005). Preference is changing over time. It can be affected by decision making pro cess in a way of judging the merits of different options ( Sharot, De Martino, & Dolan, 2009 ). It can also happen in an unaware way ( Coppin et al 2010). showed that appearance of the fru its is the major determinant of holding price constant. Country of origin ( COO ) has gained large recognition as a fruit attribute and has influence on consumer purchasing habits However, COO has only minimal effect. He also sh owed that w hile holding appearance constant, the price became the most influential attribute. Nevertheless, the influence of COO on consumer choice wa s still high in this situation (Hornsby, 2011). EU Food Labeling Law different countries can be interpreted as COO t he information of which can label. F ood labeling laws in the European Union ( E.U. ) including nutrition label s Eco label s organic label s and country of origin label s (COOL) are a set of rules that must be complied by all E.U. member states. It mandates all food products including fruits

PAGE 28

28 have their legal names or customary name written on the label description. Storage conditions, name of packer and COO of fruits must also be provided to final consumers. However, for some types of fresh fruit, such as oranges, mandarins and mandarin COOL is shown in the distribution channel at all point (European Parliament and Council Directi ve, 2000). Bureau and Valceschini (2003) stated that the E.U. labeling policy benefit ed geographic origin specialty products such as French Bordeaux region wine and Belgian chocolate, because their reputations were so well known to consumers. In addition, product traceability from COOL increases consumer confidence. However, E.U. geographic origin policy is restricted due to inefficiency of tracing labels internationally because of bureaucracy from decentralized labeling system in the E.U. Also, anti compe titive issues are raised due to exclusive right for particular producers using particular denomination (Bureau and Valceschini, 2003) Origin of EU Fresh Fruits Imports In 2010, t he principal citrus fruit suppliers to the EU 15 are South Africa, which acco unts for 30 % of th e overall trade volume, followed by Argentina (15 % ) and Morocco (10 % ) ( W orld T rade A tlas data (WTA) 2012 ). However, E U fruit imports v ary significantly between fruit varieties an d individual countries. For instance France, a membe r of the E.U. import ed 82 thousand ton s of grapefruit in 2010. The major suppliers of grapefruit to France, in descending order, are Netherlands, Spain, Israel, Belgium, and the United States ( U.S. ) However, all the grapefruit from Netherlands are imported fr om other countries. The major suppliers were China (26 % ), South Africa (25 % ) and the U.S. (20 % ) in 2010 ( World Trade Atlas data, 2012 ). Likewise, Belgium does not produce any grapefruit. It mainly imported from Neth er land s (29 % ), the U.S.

PAGE 29

29 ( 21 % ), China (16 % ) and Israel (11 % ) in 2010 (WTA, 2012). In fact, N eth erland s itself was the second largest grapefruit importing country after Japan and Belgium was the seventh largest grapefruit importing country in 2009 ( Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na tions Statistical Databases ( FAOSTAT ) 2009). Countries have always tried to differentiate their fresh fruits from others. Nevertheless, it is difficult to control quality and volume of perishable products. Thus, COOL cues consumers the quality and risk di fference between each type of fruits ( Wall, 1991 ). Similar researches also concluded that consumers use d COO as a cue for food quality (van der Lans et al. 2001; van Ittersu m et al. 2003). The same fruit in the production process is changed in both appearance and eating quality ( Cook, 1997 ). Studies found that consumers tend ed to penalize unbranded fruits t han to pay premium for branded fruits ( Bagnara 1996 ; Fox et al., 2002; Combris et al. 2007). Fruit Quality and Safety Attribute Controlling fruit quality is not easy, thus, brands becom e an important medium to signify the level of risk that consumers will be exposed to (Erdem and Swait, 1998). Despite advances in technology, fruit quality and safety have become a primary concern for consumers in developed countries (Bergman, 2002). The i ssues of food safe ty in E.U. have always been on the political agenda. The public concern s about the ways of producing fruit at all points in the marketing channel. Consumers are becoming more fastidious, more critical and more diversified in their fruit c hoices. I n order to satisfy consumers quality differentiation of fruit, both horizonta l and vertical, become s necessary. Many studies on consumer demand and perception of fruit quality and safety have been conducted (Grunert, 2005).

PAGE 30

30 Consumer Percep tion of Fruits Quality and Safety Study In the past several decades, many studies have been conducted with rega rd to quality and safety. Consumer response to fruit q uality and safety indicates that they are willing to pay a premiu m for the supplementary quality and safety attribute. Loureiro et a l (2001) labels and organic labels in apples. They use d the contingent valuat label and organic label were determined by food safet y and produce quality concerns. Akgungor et al. (1999) ed that the pesticide residual level would not induce health problem s They use d the contingent v aluation method to elicit for pesticide free tomatoes The empirical results sh owed evidence that Turkish consumers were only willing to pay no more th an 2 % for the label which claimed that the level of pesticide was not harmful to human health. fresh fr uit and vegetables. As their study confirmed, a majority of Italian consumers were willing to pay not more than 15 % price premium for pesticide free fresh fruit and vegetables. Italian consumers did not believe in pesticide free claims and only saw those c laims as partial solut ion for their demand of safety. Sometimes, health conscious consumers see organic fruits as a solution for fruit quality and safety issues Boto naki et al. (2006) toward certified fruit, including organic fruit, by using cross sectional data through a questionnaire survey. Their results showed that Greek cons umers, who pay more attention to their health, were mo re willing to pay a premium for organic fruit and

PAGE 31

31 the consumption of vegetable quality and safety. They found that infected fruits and veg etables and chemical residues w ere attention about the quality of food they consume d In addition, demographics such as age, gender and level of education were signific ant determinants of awareness of fruit safety. Elder ly people with lower ed ucation show little interest in fruit safety issue and female respondents were more concerned chemical safety than male respondents. Bagnara (1996) use d the contin gent valuation method to analyze Italian techniques. The results showed that about 58 % of the respondents were willing to pay 10 % t o 20 % more for peaches which had 50 % or less chemical residuals. 31 % or respondents were willing to pay 20 % more premium for safer peaches. Lai et al. (1997) used mail surve y to analyze (e.g. more fiber, quality assurance program, less nitrate and less chemical residue) of fresh fruit and vegetables in different countries Data were collected in Atlanta, U.S. and Berlin, Germany. One of their results showed that more consumers in Berlin were willing to pay for less chemical residual than the consumers in Atlanta in percentage term s even if the majority of consumers in both regions were willing to pay all of the four quality attributes. Combris et al. (2007) of pear by us ing experimental auction method. They found that Portuguese consumers were willing to pay premium for better quality fruits such as pesticide free fruits. Also, fruit quality i nformation related to safety had an immediate influencing effect o n

PAGE 32

32 the driving force for purchase. erception on Country of Origin Study Food safety has gradually become a global issue with international trade. Countries alw ays try to distinguish their food from others. The demand for high quality products and the desire for cultural identification have created a niche market for foods from a specific geographic location (McCluskey and Loureiro, 2003). When consumers evaluate products, they use intrinsic cues and extrinsic cues as indicators to evaluate product quality. The difference between intrinsic cue and extrinsic cue is that intrinsic cue are related to physical properties, such as appearance and taste, and extrinsic c ues can be anything other than the physical properties (Olson and Jacoby 1972; Huddleston et al 2001). Using COOL and branding are the two most common ways to differentiate Many developed countries such as the U.S, Canada and the E.U. have established mandatory law for COOL. Using COOL not only help s consumers avoid certain food from certain countries which have particular safety problem (Buzby, 2011), but also help s consumers make more informed decision and thus improves consumer welfare and market ef ficiency Golan et al and vegetables attributes is limited, consumers with better information tend to make better purchasing decisions ( P oole and Baron 1996) tions of COO have been wildly studied. For instance Elliott and Cameron (1994) studied the COO toward local and importe d products. Their study included three parts. First, they examine d the significance of COO relative to other product attribute. Second, they examine d the possibility of using COO as an indicator of product quality. Third, they

PAGE 33

33 examine d the COO oducts, holding price and brand name constant. Their results showed that a clear COO effect existed but it was far less important than price and product quality. Furthermore, when brand name, price, and technical features were held constant, consumers tend ed to prefer local produce. However, if imported goods had a superior quality over locally made products consumers generally favor ed imported goods. Alvensleben and Schrader (1998) studied Northern German consumer attitude toward butter and fresh potato es from different regions using conjoint analysis. In the case of butter, the Northern German consumer weighed price (40 % ) as more important than brand (24 % ) and country of origin (36 % ). In the fresh potato case, consumers wei ghted country of origin (40 % ) as more important than price (33 % ) and brand (27 % ). In both cases, COO attribute shows an showed that consumers were willing to pay more for foods from their own region th an food from an unknown region. Loureir conclude d that inspection certification wa s more important than COOL for beef quality attributes. The results implied that geographical indication could be a signal of quality and safety if con sumers perceive d the place of origin a s a higher quality and safety standard. A similar study by Van der Lans et al. ( 2001 ) concluded that geographical perceived quality and therefore i preference. Verbe ke and Ward (2003) investigated what information cues E.U. consumers use d in their purchasing decision and the impact of publicity campaign on E.U. beef

PAGE 34

34 label. Probit models were used to analysis cross sectional data which were collected in Belgium. They r eported that consumers with different socio demographic characteristics require d dif ferent information and firms could influence consumers purchasing decision by promotion. Researchers have tried to identify what factors are leading consumers to prefer lo cally produce over imported goods. Howard (1989) willingness to accept imported goods was positively related to their exposure to foreign cu ltures. Different goods had different factors that influence consumers purchasing decision. solely base d on variables such as food quality, food safety and COO All these studies suggest ed that consumer preferences fo r fruit from different countries were related to food quality, food safety concern, geographic origin and demographic characteristics of consumers. Also, the level and the type of promotion at the point of sales or the kinds of products under consideration may directly or indirectly influence c regard to COO research, most researchers have committed their studies on beef, organic food, fresh food and perishable food. Although considerable work has been done with potato es orange juice and apple s there is not much work that has been do ne with fresh fruit particular ly fresh citrus This research delves into E.U. of fresh fruit from different countries.

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA To determin e European Union ( E.U. ) consumer perception and preference of imported citrus fruit a questionnaire was designed and was delivered to national population in France in May 2011 by Toluna, a global online market research company. Questionnaire Design The q uestionnaire was first drafted in English. The whole survey was then translated to French by a French professional. The question n aire took about fifteen to twenty minutes to complete. The online survey solicited data on all of the variables including consu willingness to pay ( WTP ) for premium, willingness to accept ( WTA ) for compensation, fruit safety concerns, fruit quality concerns, fruit preference and demographics Open ended contingent valuation method ( CVM ) questions were designed to elicite resp For instance respondents were given a kilogram of chinese pummelo verbally. Then, they were asked how much they would be willing to pay for the same quality of grapefruit from other countries if they were w illing to exchage. If they were not willing to exchage, how much they needed to be paid to give up the grapefruit from China in exchange for the graperfruit from other countries consumer eat pummelo, gra pefruit, orange and mandarin s Participants were asked to select one of the time frequency within the specified time frame. Futhermore, L ikert t y pe scale questions, appearance, package size, price and etc.), how likely are the consumer going to

PAGE 36

36 participant perception of d ifferent citrus fruits and attitude toward fruits from different countries. Five options, from very unlikely to very likely, were provided for participants to choose. Contingency question s such as What is the first place or country that comes to s mind when they think of growers of the following fruits country of origin ( COO ) If respondent chose the United States ( U.S. ) they would then be comes to consum The detailed question n aire in English is showed in Appendix Data Collection In May 2011, the questionnaire was sent out to consumer s across France, covering 22 of 27 administrative regions in France ( Figure 3 1). Respondents were randomly recruited through the Toluna database within the French cluster. Toluna guarantees that all surveys were conducted in France. For each response, Toluna performed IP checks to confirm that the participant was located i n France while they were doing the survey. In total, 1769 respondents were sampled. To be a qualified respondent, a participant must pass some screening questions such that they must be the primary shoppers of the household, older than 18 years old and did not work in citrus or market research industries Of the 1769 participants, 1587 completed the survey and passed the screening questions Qualified r espondents were divided into FOUR groups; they are: 1) Pummelo Group 2) Grapefruit Group 3) Pummelo and Grapefruit Group and 4) Other Fruits Group. The Pummelo Group included respondents who tried pummelo before but not grapefruit. Grapefruit Group included respondents who tried grapefruit before but not pummelo. Pummelo and Grapefruit Group included respond ents who tried both pummelo and grapefruit before. Other Fruits Group included

PAGE 37

37 respondents who neither tried nor were familiar with pummelo or grapefruit. For those respondents in Other Fruits Group, they would be directed to the end of the survey because we were mainly interested in pummelo and grapefruit consumer preferences for citrus f ruits from different countries. In addition, respondents in Other Fruits Group accounted for less than 10% of the total respondents who completed the survey. At the begi nning of the survey, there were 5 observations in the Pummelo Group 464 observations in the Grapefruit Group and 980 observations in pummelo and Grapefruit Group However, at the end of the survey, no observations were left in the Pummelo Group ; 129 obser vations were in the Grapefruit Group and 410 were in the G rapefruit and Pummelo Group Three reasons could lead to the significant elimination answers, and thus were excluded f rom the survey; 2) we used validation questions to control the sur vey quality. If respondents did not read carefully and correctly answer ed the validation questions, they would be excluded from the survey; 3) some respondents left the survey because they d id not have time to finish it.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 3 1. Proportio n of respondents from different France regions

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 4 GENERAL SURVEY RESULT S willingness to pay ( WTP ) for citrus fruits from different countries purchasing behavior, were also collected. Resp In general, majority of respondents were female which accounted for 64.8% of respondents who are in the Grapefruit Group and pummelo and Grapefruit Group (Figure 4 29). This is consistent with Organization for Economic Co operation an d French women, on average, do 2 hours more unpaid work than men (Table 4 6). Some disparities, such as income and marital status, are found. According to OECD French median household income in 2007 was about USD 20 000. In proportional terms, only approxim Euro 18,000 (USD 25, 200; 1 Euro = 1.4 USD). Therefore, our sample on average, ha s higher household income than the average French household (Table 4 7). In addition, the average married proportion in Fra nce was 42% in 2008. A higher respond rate, 55%, was married in the survey (Table 4 8). The greatest disparity was the number of children who were eighteen or younger living in the household. According to the OECD, the fertility rates in 1993 and 2009 were 1.66 and 1.99, respectively. This might imply that each woman would have 1 or 2 children who were 18 years old or younger (Table 4 9). In our survey, more than half of the observations had no children (52.1%).

PAGE 40

40 Household with one child and two children acc ounted for 18.9% and 20.8%, respectively. Those ratios are much lower than the general French population (Table 4 10). According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) fact book, French people between the ages of 15 to 64 accounts for 64.7% and the media n age is 39.9 years old. In our survey, about 97% of the respondents are between the ages of 18 and 65 years old and the median age is 40 years old (Table 4 11). One of the reasons might be that elder people were not familiar with online survey and people who were 18 or younger would be excluded from doing the survey. Others minor disparities include uneven dispersion of respondents across French regions. Other demographic data were also collected. Table 4 12 shows the percentage of different employment sta tus of the respondents. Table 4 13 shows the percentage of above education. Table 4 expenditure on food in each s pending range. with Citrus Fruit Five fruit pictures (F igure 4 1) were presented to participants in the interest of fruits would highly i nfluence their abilities to understand the questions. Oranges and Mandarin were perceived as very popular citrus varieties in which they received the highest recognition rate of 96 % and 97 % respectively. About 68 % of the respondents could recognize grapefr uit. Less than half of the respondents could recognize pummelo with a recognition rate of only 48 % Among the five citrus fruits, Chinese pummelo received a recognition rate of 22 % Between May 2010 and May 2011, 49 % 63 % 86 %

PAGE 41

41 and 93 % of the respondents c onsumed pummelo, grapefruit, mandarin and oranges respectively. The low er consumption rate s for pummelo and grapefruit might be explained by their low recognition rate. Respondents who ate grapefruit before and thought that they could tell the difference b etween grapefruit and other fruits easily account for 79 % Respondents who occasionally tried grapefruit account for 13 % Respondents who only saw or heard of grapefruit account for 8 % In contrast, respondents who were very familiar with pummelo and belie ved they could easily distinguish pummelo from other fruits account for 41 % Respondents who only sporadically tried pummelo account for 23 % About 27 % of the respondents had seen or heard of pummelo and about 10 % of the respondents had never seen or heard of pummelo. The graph in Figure 4 2 shows that the number of respondents who were familiar with grapefruit nearly doubles the number of respondent who were familiar with pummelo. Respondents were divided into four groups according to their familiarities o f pummelo and grapefruit The first group consisted of respondents who had eaten only pummelo before. The second group consisted of respondents who had eaten only grapefruit before. The third group consisted of respondents who had eaten both pummelo and gr apefruit and the fourth group consisted of respondents who had never eaten pummelo or grapefruit before. This survey mainly focused on the first three was excluded for furthe r analysis; however, the remaining sample was still considered being a representable sample of citrus consumers It was because the fourth group accounted for less than 10% of the total sample. Since the number of respondents in the Pummelo

PAGE 42

42 Group is so sma ll, we assume that consumers who eat pummelo also eat grapefruit but not the other way around (Figure 4 3). First Knowledge of Fruits In general, most consumers first knew the citrus fruit from displays in grocery stores. For the Pummelo G roup (first group ), all of them first learn ed about pummelo from displays in grocery stores. For the Grapefruit Group (second group), respondents learn ed about grapefruit mainly from friends or family (58 % ) and displays in grocery store s (46 % ). For the Pummelo and Grapefru it Group (third group), respondents first learn ed about pummelo mainly from displays in grocery stores (70 % ), followed by friends or family (28 % ) (Figure 4 4 to Figure 4 6). Pummelo, Grapefruit, Orange and Mandarin Consumption Patterns For the Grapefruit G roup respondents, about 27 % never ate grapefruit in the last year. In contrast, only about 6 % of the respondent in this group did not eat oranges in the last year and only 5 % of the respondents did not eat mandarin. Similarly, respondents who ate orange an d mandarin once a year account for 10 % and 7 % respectively. Respondents who ate grapefruit once a year and once a month, in the last year, accounted for 16 % and 11 % respectively. About 5 % of the respondents in the Grapefruit Group ate grapefruit once a week. Only about 1 % of the respondents ate grapefruit daily. In comparison with the small number of respondents who consumed grapefruit daily, the number of respondents who ate oranges and mandarin once a day was a little higher (7 % and 3 % respectively) ( Figure 4 7). With regard to how often Grapefruit Group respondents consumed grapefruit, orange and mandarin in the last month (between April and May 2011), about 27 % of the respondents never ate grapefruit; 17 % of the respondents never ate orange and about

PAGE 43

43 33 % of the respondents never ate mandarin. Similarly, about 1 % of the respondents ate grapefruit once a day; about 14 % of the respondents ate orange once a day; and about 5 % of the respondents ate mandarin once a day (Figure 4 8). For respondents in the P ummelo and Grapefruit Group about 14 % of the respondents never ate pummelo in the last year. In comparison with respondents who did not eat pummelo in the last year, respondents who did not eat grapefruit, orange or mandarin in the last year accounted for 8 % 3 % and 3 % respectively. For respondents in the Pummelo and Grapefruit Group the percentage of respondents who did not eat grapefruit, orange and mandarin is lower than the percentage in the Grapefruit Group particularly for grapefruit. About 6 % of the respondents ate pummelo once a year. Furthermore, about 7 % of the respondents ate pummelo once a week and about 2 % of the respondents ate pummelo once a day. In comparison to Grapefruit Group respondents who ate grapefruit (5 % ) orange (9 % ) and mand arin (9 % ) weekly Pummelo and Grapefruit Group respondents ate grapefruit(8 % ), orange (13 % ) and mandarin (12 % ) more often (Figure 4 9) With regard to how often Pummelo and Grapefruit Group respondents consumed pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin in t he last month (between April and May 2011), about 24 % of the respondents did not eat pummelo; about 18 % of the respondents did not eat grapefruit; 13 % of the respondents did not eat orange and about 26 % of the respondents did not eat mandarin. The portions were much lower than the portion of respondents who were in the Grapefruit Group Similarly, about 2 % of the respondents ate pummelo once a day; about 3 % of the respondents ate grapefruit once a day; about 12 % of the respondents ate orange once a day; and about 7 % of the

PAGE 44

44 respondents ate mandarin once a day (Figure 4 10). This indicates that respondents in Pummelo and Grapefruit Group were more frequent citrus fruit consumers. Perception of Fresh Citrus Attributes A list of fruit attributes, including price freshness, flavor, appearance, juiciness, fruit size, easiness to peel, packaging, product origin, seediness and brand, were presented to respondents in order to identify the level of importance for making purchase decision. Both Grapefruit respondents a nd Pummelo and Grapefruit Group respondents identified that price, freshness, flavor, appearance and juiciness were more important attributes than brand and package. In regard to product origin attribute, about 20 % of the respondents in the Grapefruit Grou p saw product origin as unimportant and only about 50 % of the respondents saw it as important. In contrast only about 10 % of respondents in the Pummelo and Grapefruit Group considered product origin as unimportant (Figure 4 11 & 4 12 ). Knowledge of Citrus Product Origin Respondents were asked what countries came to their mind when they first thought of pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin. About 19 % 17 % 5 % and 10 % of the respondent in the Pummelo and Grapefruit Group had no clue which counties were w ell known for growing pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin. It is not surprising that orange and mandarin were more popular and have higher recognition rate as previously discussed. Among Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brazil, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Franc e, Honduras, Israel, Italy Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Taiwan, Turkey, Uruguay and the United States ( U.S. ) Spain gained the highest identification rate with pummelo (23 % ), grapefruit(26 % ), orange (61 % ) and mandarin (51 % ). This result is coincide with the fact that Spain was the largest exporter

PAGE 45

45 of orange and mandarin to France and the second largest exporter of grapefruit to France in 2010 (Figure 4 13 to Figure 4 15). The U.S. ranked the second as the most popular grower o f pummelo, grapefruit and orange. The result is a bit unexpected because the U.S. exports less than 1 % of orange to France and produces very few pummelo. It may imply that respondents were not able to differentiate between pummelo and grapefruit and the im age of the U.S. was popular in France. In addition, even if France produces very small amount of mandarin, France was considered as one of the most popular growers of mandarin (Figures 4 16). Similarly, in Grapefruit Group respondents had no idea which co untries were well known for growing pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin, accounted for 53 % 31 % 31 % and 18 % The portions are much higher than the Pummelo and Grapefruit Group This result may imply that respondents with less knowledge of grapefruit would also have less knowledge of pummelo, orange and mandarin. Again, Spain gained the highest recognition rate for growing pummelo (14 % ), grapefruit (21 % ), orange (56 % ) and mandarin (42 % ). The U.S. ranked the second as the most popular pummelo (6 % ) and g rapefruit (11 % ) grower, followed by Israel and Brazil. Brazil was perceived as the second most popular grower of orange (8 % ), following equally by France, Israel and the U.S. France was perceived as the second most popular mandarin (23 % ) grower, followed b y Italy. Surprisingly, not too many respondents perceived China as a major growing country of pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin. In fact, China ranked the first as the largest pummelo growing country and the fourth as largest orange producing countr ies in 2009 (FAOSTAT 20 12 ). Still, Chinese pummelo was perceive d as more popular than other fruits from China. Furthermore, for the respondents in both g roup s,

PAGE 46

46 who chose the U.S. as the most popular country for growing grapefruit and orange, about 90 % of the respondents chose the state of Florida as the major growing state of grapefruit and orange. This is consistent with the fact that Florida controls about 70 % of U.S. grapefruit supply (Figure 4 17). Attitudes toward the Fruit from Different Countries Respondents were asked whether they read labels regarding product origin and brand. About 88 % of the respondents read labels when they purchased fresh produce. Respondents were asked how likely they would be to purchase fruit from China, France, the U.S., Spain, Brazil, Israel and Turkey. About 94 % of respondent s were likely to purchase local grown fruit. The results indicated that French consumers had strong preferences of local produce Among those importing countries, Spain ranked the first as favorab le countries for fruit growing followed by Brazil, the U.S., Israel, T urkey and China (Figure 4 18). In order to understand how respondent perceived safety, quality and price attributes of fruit from different countries, respondents were asked to rate the saf ety or risk level, overall quality and average price level of fresh fruits from China, France, the U.S.A, Spain, Brazil, Israel and Turkey. Regarding safety concern, French local fresh fruits were considered the safest by 43 % respondents, followed by fruit s from Spain, the U.S., Israel, Brazil, Turkey and China (Figure 4 19) Regarding overall quality, majority of respondents (88 % ) saw French local fresh fruits quality as superior to the fruits from other countries. Fruits from Spain were seen as subordinat e to fruits from France, followed by Brazil, the U.S., Israel, Turkey and China. It is not surprising that France has very high quality in fruits because France is well known for its high standard and quality in food and cuisine. In contrast, With

PAGE 47

47 notorious food scandal, it is not unexpected that China remained the lowest in both safety concern and overall perceived quality (Figure 4 20). Regarding t he average price level of fruit from different countries, respond ents rated French local produce as more expensive than imported produce It is very normal that better quality always comes with higher price. However, a higher price does not always signal a better quality. For instance the perceived price of fruit from Spain was much lower than fruit fro m the U.S. however, the perceived quality and safety of fruits from Spain was considered as superior to fruits from the U.S. Again, China was ranked the lowest in term of average price of the fresh fruits (Figure 4 21). Table 4 1 summarized countries rank ing for respondents attitude toward likelihood to buy, fruit safety, fruit quality and average price of fresh fruits. for citrus fruit respondents were asked how likely they would purchase pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin, assuming all fruit were produced in France and respondents had enough money to purchase whatever food they want. Respondents were more likely to purchase orange and mandarin than pummelo and grapefruit. This is con sistent with the previous fr uit familiarity results. Also, this result is consistent with the consumer purchase decision process. Consumers first need ed to recognize their needs, followed by information search and alternative evaluation. After that, consumers made up their purchase d ecision. If consumers did not have need s to purchase pummelo and grapefruit, they would not search information about pummelo and grapefruit. Therefore, they would not be familiar with pummelo and grapefruit. As a result, they would be less likely to purcha se pummelo and grapefruit (Figure 4 22).

PAGE 48

48 As we discussed previously, attributes, such as price, freshness, flavor, appearance and juiciness, were more important than product origin. Even if respondents showed a passi on for French local fresh fruit they wo uld still consider imported pummelo and grapefruit. Pummelo and g rapefruit are subtropical fruit varieties that only flourish in warm subtropical climates. French grown pummelo and grapefruit should be subordinate to imported pummelo and grapefruit in term s of internal and external quality. However, when respondents were asked how likely they would purchase grapefruit from France, the U.S. Turkey, China, Spain, Israel, Brazil and Florida, U.S., France was still the most favorite place for respondents. Spai n was the second most favorite, following equally by Brazil and the U.S. This indicates that consumer s might over estimate their knowledge of the fruits they purchased and they overemphasized their effort s to read country of origin ( COO ) label on fruits. H owever, Florida alone received a much higher rating than the U.S. in general. This implies that grapefruit with a Florida brand could charge a higher premium than a brand with only stating the U.S. Again, China was the least likely country for respondents to purchase grapefruit (Figure 4 23) Similarly, when respondents were asked how likely they would purchase pummelo from the U.S. Turkey, China, Spain, Israel, Brazil and Florida, U.S., respondents rated Spain as the most favorite place of pummelo origin follo wed by the U.S. Brazil, Israel, Turkey and China. Once more, respondents rated the state of Florida about 11 % higher than the U.S. as a whole. Although, China received the lowest rating for the likelihood of purchasing pummelo, China is the leading supplier of pummelo to the E.U. C onsumers might purchase Chinese pummelo in the market without noticing its origin This again

PAGE 49

49 indicates that consumers might not read COO label on fruit product as much as they had thought ( Figure 4 24) Perception of Grap efruit from Florida Respondents were asked whether they had heard or eaten grapefruit from Florida. Approximately 76 % of the respondents had heard or eaten grapefruit from Florida before (Figure 4 25). Among those respondents who had heard or eaten grapefr uit from Florida before, about 77 % of respondents agreed that grapefruit from Florida could boost energy. Moreover, about 60 % of the respondents agreed that grapefruit from Florida had superior quality and was good for dieting. About 55 % of the respondents were unsure about quality and safety of grapefruit from Florida and o nly about 27 % of the respondents believed grapefruit from Florida had better quality and safer than grapefruit from other countries. Moreover nearly 58 % of the respondents were unsure w hether grapefruit from Florida had the ability of improving the appearance of skin (Figure 4 26). Perception of Pummelo from China Respondents who had heard or eaten Chinese pummelo before accounted for more than a quarter of the respondent s Over 66 % of the respondent s had never heard of Chinese pummelo. Among those who had heard or eaten Chinese pummelo, about 18 % of them believed pummelo from China is of premium quality. Regarding quality and safety concern, only about 10 % of the respondents believed p ummelo from China was superior to pummelo from other countries or regions. For the general benefit of pummelo, about 45 % of the respondents agreed that Chinese pummelo was good for dieting; about 52 % of the respondents agreed that Chinese pummelo could boo st energy; and about 26 % of the respondents agreed that Chinese pummelo could

PAGE 50

50 improve the appearance of skin. In comparison with the general benefit characteristics of grapefruit from Florida, the rate of Chinese pummelo was not very high. However, it migh t not be because more respondent were disagreed. It might be because respondents were more uncertain about those benefits for fruit from China. Nearly half of the respondents were neutral to those benefit characteristics and quality attributes. This indica tes that respondents who had a negative view of pummelo from China were only minority. As previously discussed, fruit from China is viewed as the lowest in quality and the least safe. Also, pummelo was the least likely to be purchased. As a result, only a bout 13 % of the respondents prefer pummelo from China to pummelo from other countries or regions (Figure 4 27). Respondents were asked whether they knew about fruit origin when they purchased pummelo, grapefruit, o range and mandarin last time. About 47 % of the respondents did not know where the grapefruit were from and more than half of the respondents did not know where the pummelo they bought were from. Respondents who did not know where the orange and mandarin th ey bought were from account for 27 % and 36 % respectively. Only about a quarter to a half of the re spondents remembered where the fruit were from. It may indicate that consumers might not pay too much attention to fruit label. For grapefruit, 20 % of the re spondent recalled that the fruit they bought were from the U.S. Small portion of respondents recalled that the grapefruit they bought were from Israel (13 % ), Spain (9 % ), France (4 % ) and Brazil (3 % ). Similarly, the U.S. had the most respondent s who recalled that the pummelo they bought were from the U.S. Spain had

PAGE 51

51 the most respondent s who recalled that the orange and mandarin they bought were from Spain (Figure 4 28). Willingness to Pay for F ruit from Different Countries To determine consumers WTP for citrus fruit from different countries, respondents were asked how much more they were willing to pay for grapefruit from the U.S. France, Turkey, Israel, Brazil, Spain and the state of Florida compared to grapefruit from China. I f they were not willing to pay, respondents were asked how much they need to be paid to accept grapefruit from those countries. Finally, if respondent were When grapefruit from China were compared to grapefruit f rom Turkey, Brazil and Israel independently, over 60 % of the respondents were indifferent between China and those countries. When grapefruit from China were compared to the U.S. Spain and the state of Florida individually, about 55 % respondents were indif ferent. France was the only country which had less than half of the respondents were indifferent (Table 4 2). On Average, a bout 50 % of the respondents were willing to pay 1.80 Euro premiums for grapefruit from France; about 5 % respondents were not willing to exchange their grapefruit from China to grapefruit from France unless they were paid 1.82 Euro as reimbursement. For those respondents who were willing to pay premium for grapefruit from other countries, the state of Florida ranked the first, followed by the U.S. Israel, Spain, Brazil and Turkey in term of the amount of premium. For those respondents who need to be compensated to exchange grapefruit from China to other countries, the U.S. ranked the first, followed by Turkey, the state of Florida, Braz il, Israel, Spain and France. Interestingly, respondents, who need to be paid, required higher amount of compensation than respondents, who were willing to pay premium for other countries

PAGE 52

52 grapefruit. Similar analyses were done on pummelo, orange and mandar in (Table 4 3 to Table 4 5). For instance respondents who were willing to pay premium to exchange their Chinese pummelo Chinese orange and Chinese mandarin to the U.S. produced pummelo, orange and mandarin accounted for 28 % 27 % and 24 % and the mean WTP for respondents who need to be compensated to exchange their pummelo, orange and mandarin from China to the U.S., the mean willingness to accept (WTA) were 0 respectively. The propo rtions for those who were unwilling to exchange were 12 % for pummelo, 13 % for orange and 14 % for mandarin.

PAGE 53

53 Table 4 1 Summary o perception of fresh fruits from different countries Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attribute Likely to buy France Spain Brazil U S A Israel Turkey China Safety concern France Spain U.S.A. Israel Brazil Turkey China Overall quality France Spain Brazil U.S.A. Israel Turkey China Price France U.S.A. Israel Brazil Spain Tur key China Table 4 2 Willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) to exchange Chinese pummelo to fruits from other countries The U.S. France Turkey Florida, U.S. Israel Brazil Spain Yes (EU/KG) 31% 50% 17% 36% 23% 23% 35% 80) No (EU/KG) 12% 5% 21% a 10% 16% 15% 10% I do not care 56% 45% 62% 54% 61% 62% 55% Mean WTP 0.21) Note: For those respondents who were not willing to pay a price premium to exchange e compensated. If in that case, the percentage of respondents who lower than the table specified. Table 4 3 WTP and WTA to exchange Chinese pummelo to fruits from other countries The U.S. Turkey Florida, U.S Israel Brazil Spain Yes (EU/KG) 28% 16% 31% 21% 21% 29% No (EU/KG) 12% 17% 9% 14% 13% 11% I do not care 61% 67% 60% 66% 66% 60% Mean WTP

PAGE 54

54 Table 4 4 WTP and WTA to exchange Chinese orange to fruits from other countries The U.S. France Turkey Florida, U.S. Israel Brazil Spain Yes (EU/KG) 27% 45% 17% 31% 22% 24% 34% No (EU/KG) 13% 5% 18% 10% 14% 13% 8% I do not care 60% 49% 65% 59% 64% 63% 58% Mean WTP Table 4 5 WTP and WTA to exchange Chinese mandar in to fruits from other countries The U.S. France Turkey Florida, U.S. Israel Brazil Spain Yes (EU/KG) 24% 43% 16% 27% 21% 20% 33% No (EU/KG) 14% 6% 19% 12% 15% 14% 9% ) I do not care 63% 51% 65% 61% 65% 66% 58% Mean WTP

PAGE 55

55 Table 4 6. Unpaid work done by male and female, difference in minutes per day in 2011 C ountry Difference Female unpaid work Male unpaid work Denmark 57 243 186 Sweden 72 249 177 Norway 73 225 152 Finland 91 245 154 Belgium 94 245 151 Canada 102 248 146 United States 104 258 154 Germany 105 269 164 Netherlands 110 273 163 Estonia 11 9 288 169 Slovenia 120 286 166 France 122 258 136 United Kingdom 123 273 150 Austria 134 269 135 New Zealand 136 294 158 Poland 139 296 157 Australia 139 311 172 Hungary 141 268 127 China 143 234 91 OECD 148 279 131 South Africa 165 257 92 Irel and 167 296 129 Korea 182 227 45 Spain 187 294 107 Japan 210 269 59 Italy 223 326 103 Portugal 232 328 96 Turkey 260 377 116 Mexico 261 373 113 India 300 352 52 Source: Based on Organization for Economic Co operation and Development (OECD) data

PAGE 56

56 Table 4 7. Percentage of respondent in each household income category Household Income Percentage 17.4% 18.2% 21.2% 18.4% 13.9% 2.6% 1.3% 0.4% 0.6% Do not know 6.1% Table 4 8. Marital status of respondents in the survey relative to OECD data Marital status Survey OECD Single / Never been married 31% 29% Married 56% 42% Separated 3% 1% Divorced 9% 5% Widowed 2% 10% Source: Based on Organization for Economic Co operation and Develop ment (OECD) data

PAGE 57

57 Table 4 9. France fertility rate from 1993 to 2009 Child's age in 2011 Year Fertility rate Child's age in 2011 Year Fertility rate 0 2011 N/A 10 2001 1.88 1 2010 N/A 11 2000 1.87 2 2009 1.99 12 1999 1.79 3 2008 1.99 13 1998 1.76 4 2007 1.96 14 1997 1.73 5 2006 1.98 15 1996 1.73 6 2005 1.92 16 1995 1.71 7 2004 1.90 17 1994 1.66 8 2003 1.87 18 1993 1.66 9 2002 1.86 Source: Based on Organization for Economic Co operation and Development (OECD) data Table 4 10. Percentage o f number of child in respondents household Number of Child Percentage None 52% One 19% Two 21% Three 6% Four or more 2%

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 11. Percentage of respondents in each age group Age Percentage Less than 20 1.1% 20 25 7.4% 26 30 13.1% 31 35 15.4% 36 40 15.7% 41 45 12.4% 46 50 10.0% 51 55 8.3% 56 60 6.0% 61 65 7.2% 66 70 2.6% 71 75 0.6% 76 80 0.1% Greater than 80 0.0% Figure 4 12. Percentage of respondents in each employment category Employment Status Percent age Full Time 58% Part Time 8% Currently not Working 14% Retired 11% Student 4% Other 5%

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 13. Percentage of respondents in each education level Education Level Percentage Less than High School 9% High School or Equivalent 26% Some Col lege 22% Four Year College 14% Postgraduate 9% Trade/Technicall School 15% Other 5% Table 4 14. Percentage of respondent in each household weekly spending category Weekly Food Spending Percentage 10.95% 31.17% 31 .35% 13.17% 7.61% 2.41% 0.93% 0.19% 0.00% 0.19% 0.19% Don't know 1.86%

PAGE 60

60 A B C D E Figure 4 1 Fruits pictures present to survey participants. A) pummelo B ) grapefruit C) Chinese pummelo, D) mandarin and E ) orange

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 2 Percentage of consumers that is familiar with grapefruit and pummelo Figure 4 3 Proportion of respondents who finished the survey

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4 4 Source of information of f irst knowledge of pummelo ( Grapefruit and P ummelo Gr oup ) Figure 4 5 Source of information of first knowledge of grapefruit ( G rapefruit Group )

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 6 Source of information of first knowledge of grapefruit ( G rapefruit and P ummelo Group ) Figure 4 7 Consumptio n frequencies of grapefruit, orange and mandarin in the last year ( G rapefruit Group )

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 8 Consumption frequencies of grapefruit in the last month ( G rapefruit Group ) Figure 4 9 Consumptio n frequencies of pummelo grapefruit, orange and mandarin in the last year ( G rapefruit and P ummelo Group )

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 1 0 Consumption frequencies of pummelo, grapefruit, orange and mandarin in the last month ( G rapefruit and P ummelo Group ) Figure 4 1 1 Importance of fresh citrus attributes ( G rapefruit and P ummelo Group )

PAGE 66

66 Figure 4 1 2 Importanc e of fresh citrus attributes ( G rapefruit Group ) Figure 4 1 3 The top 10 countries, France imported orange from in 2010 Source: Based on World Trade Atlas data

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 1 4 The top 10 countries, France imported mandarin from in 2010 Source: Based on World Trade Atlas data Figure 4 1 5 The top 10 countries, France imported grapefruit from in 2010 Source: Based on World Trade Atlas data

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 16. Awar eness of fruits from different countries ( G rapefruit and P ummelo Group ) Figure 4 17 Awareness of fruits from different countries ( G rapefruit Group )

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4 18 Likelihood of French consumer buying fruit from different countries Figure 4 19 Per ceived safety of fresh fruit from different countries

PAGE 70

70 Figure 4 20 Perceived overall quality of fresh fruit from different countries Figure 4 21 Perceived price of fresh fruit from different countries

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4 22 Consumers o purchase grapefruit, orange, pummelo and mandarin Figure 4 23 Likelihood of purchasing grapefruit from different countries

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4 24 Likelihood of purchasing pummelo from different countries Figure 4 2 5 experience of Chi nese pummelo and Florida grapefruit

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4 26 Perceptions of Florida grapefruit Figure 4 27 Perceptions of pummelo from China 2% 7% 5% 3% 1% 2% 16% 38% 47% 23% 9% 11% 54% 46% 40% 58% 52% 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Of Premium Quality Good for Dieting & Weight Loss Boost Energy Improve the Appearance of Skin Better quality and safer than Other Countries Prefer Chinese Pummelo to Other Countries Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4 28 Recall fruits origin, respondents purchased last time Figure 4 29. Proportion of gender

PAGE 75

75 C HAPTER 5 THE TOBIT MODEL The regression analyses only focus on consumer willingness to pay ( WTP ) for fresh citrus fruit from countries over the fruit from China. Since a large proportion of the WTPs in the data is zero and t he dependent variable is non neg ative. Therefore, the data is censored at zero and the Tobit model is appropriate for our study because it relates a non negative dependent variable to independent variables. The Tobit model was first proposed by James Tobin (1958) The formulation of the Tobit model is as follows: Y i *= X i i ( 5 1) Y i =0 if Y i ( 5 2) Y i =Y i if Y i *>0 ( 5 3) Where Yi* is the latent variable. If it is greater than zero, then the observed dependent vari able Yi equals Yi*. If Yi* is smaller than zero, Yi is observed as zero. Therefore, the observed dependent variable is either positive or zero. It cannot be negative. is the vector of parameters to be estimated i is the error term. Different from a linear regression model in the interpretation of the coefficient, is not the marginal effect of xi on Yi. Instead, it combines the effect of the change in Yi* that is above zero and the effect of the change in the probability of positive Yi *. A lthough b eta is not the marginal effect in T obit model, the sign of beta can still tell the direction of the independent variable on the dependent variable.

PAGE 76

76 Method of Data Analysis The factors that influence European Union ( E U ) the United States ( U.S. ) were analyzed using Tobit model which were specifi ed in Equation 5 4 to 5 7. WTP G USA i = intercept 1 GENDER 2 COLLEGE 3 POSTGRADUATE 4 AGE 5 MEDIANINCOME 6 HIGHINCOME 7 FOOD 8 SAFEUSA + 9 GFREQ 1 0 COO 1 1 BRAND + 1 2 PUMMELO + u i ( 5 4 ) WTPPUSA i = 1 GENDER 2 COLLEGE 3 POSTGRADUATE 4 AGE 5 MEDIANINCO ME 6 HIGHINCOME 7 FOOD 8 SAFEUSA 9 PFREQ 10 COO 11 BRAND 12 PUMMELO + u i ( 5 5 ) WTPOUSA i = 1 GENDER 2 COLLEGE 3 POSTGRADUATE 4 AGE 5 MEDIANINCOME 6 HIGHINCOME 7 FOOD 8 SAFEUSA 9 OFREQ 10 COO 11 BRAND 12 PUMMELO + u i ( 5 6 ) WTPMUSA i = 1 GENDER 2 COLLEGE 3 POSTGRADUATE 4 AGE 5 MEDIANINCOME 6 HIGHINCOME 7 FOOD 8 SAFEUSA 9 MFREQ 10 COO 11 BRAND 12 PUMMELO + u i ( 5 7 ) price premi um for fruit from the state of Florida, France, Spain, Turkey and Israel would be using the same specification. The only differences are the safety concern variable consumption frequency variable and the dependent variables. Safety concern variable and th e dependent variables are country specified while consumption frequency variable is fruit specified. Definitions of Dependent V ariables WTPOUSA price premium for orange produced in the U.S. over orange produced in China

PAGE 77

77 WTPMUSA Parti U.S. over mandarin produced in China WTPGUSA U.S. over grapefruit produced in China WTPPUSA melo produced in the U.S. over pummelo produced in China WTPOF LORIDA over orange produced in China WTPMF LORIDA over manda rin produced in China WTPGF LORIDA over grapefruit produced in China WTPPF LORIDA over pummelo produced in China WTPOF R ANCE over orange produced in China WTPMF RANCE over mandarin produced in China WTPGF RANCE r grapefruit produced in France over grapefruit produced in China WTPOS PAIN orange produced in China WTPMS PAIN over manda rin produced in China WTPGS PAIN over grapefruit produced in China WTPPS PAIN over pummelo produced in China WTPOT URKEY Pa over orange produced in China

PAGE 78

78 WTPMT URKEY over mandarin produced in China WTPGT URKEY it produced in Spain over grapefruit produced in China WTPPT URKEY over pummelo produced in China WTPOI SRAEL orange produc ed in China WTPMI SRAEL over mandarin produced in China WTPGI SRAEL over grapefruit produced in China WTPPI SRAEL Partic over pummelo produced in China Definitions of Explanatory V ariables GENDER Male is equal to 1 and female is equal to 0 COLLEGE Participant who had college level education. POSTGRADUATE Partic ipant who had postgraduate level education AGE MEDIANINCOME Participant whose household income were 49,999 HIGHINCOME Participant whose household income were FOOD Participant whose weekly h ousehold spending on food SAFEUSA The perceived risk level of fruit from the U.S. SAFEFLORIDA The perceived risk level of fruit from Florida, U.S. SAFEFRANCE The perceived risk level of fruit from France SAFETURKEY The perceived risk level of fruit from the Turkey

PAGE 79

79 SAFEISRAEL The perceived risk level of fruit from the Israel SAFESPAIN The perceived risk level of fruit from the Spain GFREQ The frequency of consuming grapefruit in the last year PFREQ The frequency of consuming pummelo in the last year OFREQ The frequency of consuming orange in the last year MFREQ The frequency of consuming mandarin in the last year COO The perceived level of importance of country of origin attributes. BRAND The perceived level of importance of brand att ributes. PUMMELO Participant who t ried pummelo before is equal to 1 and participant who n ever tried pummel before is equal 0 Description of Variables in Tobit Models ge was measured from their year of bi rth and g ender was measured as a di ordinal scale from less than high school level to postgraduate level. Three dummy variables ( HIGHSCHOOL COLLEGE and POSTGRADUATE ) were created representing 1 ) less than high school high sch ool and technical school education, 2) some college or four year college education, and 3 ) postgraduate education HIGHSCHOOL variable was dropped to avoid dummy trap problem income was measured in ordinal scale. Three dummy variables ( LOWINC OME MEDIANINCOME and HIGHINCOME ) were created. LOWINCOME variable was dropped to be used as the base income category. SAFEUSA SAFEFLORIDA SAFEFRANCE SAFESPAIN SAFETURKEY and SAFEISRAEL measured respective countries and region. Those variables were measured in ordinal scale. If respondent perceived fresh fruit from

PAGE 80

80 the U.S. were safe, then the value would be 3; if they perceived fruit from the U.S. had low level of risk, it would then be 2; if the y perceived fruit from the U.S. had median level of risk, it would then be 1; if they perceived fruit from the U.S. had high level of risk, it would then be 0. GFREQ PFREQ OFREQ and MFREQ measure d how often respondents consumed grapefruit, pummelo, orang e and mandarin, respectively, in the last year. All of them are frequency variables. The more frequent consumers ate the respective fruit, the higher the variable value would be. For instance if respondent ate grapefruit once a year, then GFREQ would be 2 If respondent ate grapefruit once a day, then GFREQ would be 18. COO and Brand measured the perceived level of importance of country of origin and brand attributes. It would be 7 for very important and 1 for very unimportant. Pummelo is a dummy variable. It measured whether respondent had tried pummelo or not.

PAGE 81

81 CHAPTER 6 THE EMPIRICAL RESULTS some attributed variables such as country of origin (COO) and brand were selected to be re g ressors and were reg to pay (WTP) price pre mium on specific type of fruit. The U nited States For WTPs for grapefruit produced in the U.S. relative to grapefruit produced in China all demographics including age gender and education are ins ignificant except income Also, grapefruit consumption frequency (GFREQ), brand attribute (BRAND) and experience of pummelo (PUMMELO) are insignificant. Only three variables, higher income ( HIGHINCOME ), perceived level of safety for fruit from the U.S. (SA FEUSA) and fruit origin (COO), are significant at the 10% significance level F amilies are more likely to buy grapefruit from the U S than they would buy grapefruit from China. However, the dummy variable of median inco income reaches a specific level, income plays a significant role in purchasing of the U.S. produced grapefruit. COO attribute and safety perception of fruit also ha ve positive effect on WTPs for U S produced grapefruit For the WTP premium for U.S. produced pummelos model, all demographic variables, food spending (FOOD), brand attributes (BRAND) and experiences of pummelo (PUMMELO) are insignificant. However, perceived level of safety (S AFEUSA), consumption frequency of pummelo (PFREQ) and fruit origin (COO) are significant. Therefore consumption pattern of pummelo importance of COO attribute

PAGE 82

82 and without safety concern f or fruit from the U.S. would have positive effect on WTPs for U.S. produced pummelo. For the WTP premium for U.S. produced orange model and mandarin model, all demographic variables are not significant, nor perceived level of safety concern, nor consumption frequency, nor experience of pummelo. In regard to brand attribut es, BRAND is significant in the model of mandarin but insignificant in the model of orange. The only variable which is significant for both models is COO. Therefore, we might conclude that if consumers see COO as an important factor they might be more wil ling to pay price premium for orange and mandarin from the U.S Also, consumer might be more willing to pay a price premium, if an U.S produced mandarin is branded (Table 6 1 ) Florida, U.S. For the model of WTP for grape fruit and orange produced in Flori da all demographics are not significant, nor consumption frequency, nor brand, nor experience of pummelo at the 10% significant level. Only perceived level of safety (SAFEUSA) and perceived importance of COO (COO) are significant. For the model of WTP fo r Florida produced pummelo, all demographics are not significant except age. Other insignificant variables include brand attributes (BRAND) and experience of pummelo. premium for pummelo produced in t he U.S. However, the effect is very minimal because the coefficient is very small (0.04). Other significant variables are perceived safety level of fruit from the U.S. (SAFEUSA), consumption frequency of pummelo (PFREQ) and perceived importance of COO

PAGE 83

83 Fo r the Florida produced mandarin, all demographics are not significant nor brand attribu tes, nor experience of pummelo. Perceived level of safety (SAFEUSA), consumption frequency (MFREQ) and perceived importance of COO (COO) are significant in the WTP for U.S. produced mandarin model. There are two independent variables, SAFEUSA and COO, are significant in all for modes. Both of them have fruit from the U.S. (Table 6 2 ). France For the citrus fruit prod uced in France, people in the E.U. who believe COO is important are willing to pay more for French produced grapefruit, orange and mandarin Also, consumers who had less safety concern for fruit produced in France w ould more likely to pay a price premium for French produced grapefruit, orange and mandarin. For Fr ench produced grapefruit education has a positive significant effect on French produced grapefruit. Variable (POSTGRADUATE) is significant but variable (COLLEGE) is insi gnificant. This result m ay level was up to a particular level ( POSTGRADUATE ), they would be more likely to pay a premium for French produced grapefruit. Except education, all other demographics are not significant, nor consumption frequency, nor brand and experience of pummelo. For the French produced orange model and mandarin model consumption frequency is significant for both models. The more often consumers consume orange and mandarin, the more likely they would pay a price premium for French produced orange and mandarin. A ll demographics are insignificant for the orange model and

PAGE 84

84 mandarin model, nor experience of pummelo. In regard to brand attributes, it is significant for orange model but insignificant for mandari n model (Table 6 3 ) Spain For the WTP premium for Spanish produced grape fruit model and pummelo model all the demographics are not significant, nor consumption frequency, nor brand attributes, nor experience of pummelo. Safety concerns for fruit from Spa in (SAFESPAIN) and perceived importance of COO (COO) are significant for both models. For the WTP premium for Spa nish produced orange model, all demographics are insignificant except age. WTP for S pain produced orange. Interestingly, perceived level of safety is significant for grapefruit model, pummelo model and mandarin model but not orange model. Other insignificant variables include brand attributes and experience of pummelo. There is only one v ariable beside s age which is significant COO Perceived importance of COO ha s a positive effect on For the WTP premium for Spanish produced mandarin model, all demographics are not significant, nor brand attr ibutes, nor experience of pummelo. There are three variables, which are safety concern, consumption frequency and perceived importance of COO mandarin (Table 6 4 ) Turkey For the WTP premiu m for Turkish produced grapefruit model pummelo model, orange model and mandarin model, all the demographics are not significant nor consumption frequency, nor brand attributes, nor experience of pummelo. The only variable, which is significant for all f our models, is perceived importance of COO (COO).

PAGE 85

85 Consumers, who think COO is important, may be willing to pay more for Turkish produced fruit. Interestingly, safety concern (SAFETURKEY) is significant for the grapefruit model, orange model and mandarin mo del but is in significant for the pummelo model. People without safety concerns are more likely to pay a premium for Turk ish produced grapefruit orange and mandarin (Table 6 5 ) Israel For the WTP premium for Israeli produced grapefruit model all demograp hics are insignificant except household income. In regard to household income, the dummy variable (HIGHINCOME) is significant but the other dummy variable (MEDIANINCOME) h a particular level, they are more likely to pay a premium Other significant variables include safety concern for fruit from Israel ( SAFEISRAEL ) and perceived importance of COO (COO). If consumers see COO as important attribute, they are more likely to pay premium for grapef ruit produced in Israel. If consumers are without safety concern, they are more likely to pay a premium for Israeli produced grapefruit. Other insignificant variables include perceived importance of brand attribute (BRAND) grapefruit consumption frequency (GFREQ) and experience of pummelo (POMMELO) For the WTP premium for Israeli produced pummelo model, all demographics are insignificant except education. In regard to education, the dummy variable ( COLLEGE ) is significant but the other dummy ( POSTGRADUATE ) is insignificant. When a particular level but not above it they are more likely to pay premium for Israeli produced pummelo. The other significant variable is fruit origin (COO). People who think COO is important are more l ikely to pay premium for pummelo

PAGE 86

86 produced in Israel. The rest of the variables, including safety concern, pummelo consumption frequency, brand attribute and experience of pummelo, are insignificant. For the WTP premium for Israeli produced orange model, al l variables are insignificant except COO. Consumers who see COO as an important attribute are more likely to pay premium for Israeli produced orange. For the WTP premium for Israeli produced mandarin model all demographics are insignificant except age. Co produced mandarin is positively affect The other significant variables are safety concern ( SAFEISRAEL ) and perceive importance of COO (COO). If consumers see COO as important attribute, they are more li kely to pay premium for mandarin produced in Israel. If consumers are without safety concern, they are more likely to pay a premium for Israeli produced mandarin (Table 6 6 ) In sum, the explanatory power of demographics is not strong in explaining E.U. co Age, gender, e ducation levels and household income mostly are insignificant in explaining the variation in consumer WTP for fruit from whatever countries. The most important fact or s in our study are safety concerns and COO for fruit from different countries. COO is significant for all citrus fruit from all countries. However, the effect of safety concern is only significant for grapefruit from all countries. S af ety concern is not significant in all the model s. For instance safety concern is insignificant for orange from Spain, Israel and the U.S. mandarin from the U.S. and pummelo from Israel and Turkey. One of the reasons might be that safety concern is both fruit specific and c ountry specific. E.U. consumers only concern particular fruit from particular countries.

PAGE 87

87 Table 6 1 The U.S. Tobit model Grapefruit Pummelo Orange Mandarin Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| AGE 0.01 0.27 0.01 0.57 0.01 0.1 6 0.00 0.95 GENDER 0.04 0.89 0.19 0.68 0.24 0.34 0.04 0.87 COLLEGE 0.18 0.56 0.03 0.95 0.02 0.93 0.17 0.52 POSTGRADUATE 0.31 0.52 0.08 0.91 0.48 0.21 0.55 0.18 MEDIANINCOME 0.50 0.14 0.12 0.82 0.13 0.63 0.23 0.43 HIGHINCOME 0.76 0.06 0.15 0.80 0.54 0.10 0.44 0.21 SAFEUSA 0.70 0.00 0.55 0.03 0.06 0.67 0.05 0.71 GFREQ 0.01 0.72 PFREQ 0.16 0.01 OFREQ 0.01 0.82 MFREQ 0.04 0.24 COO 0.60 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.60 0.00 BRAND 0.12 0.27 0.02 0.90 0.10 0.26 0.11 0.25 PUMMELO 0.44 0.26 1.31 0.14 0.20 0.50 0.00 0.99 INTERCEPT 4.82 0.00 7.89 0.00 2.11 0.00 3.60 0.00 /SIGMA 0.16 0.29 2.05 2.18 ( 2.35 ) ( 2.91 ) ( 0.12 ) ( 0.13 ) LR chi 2 (12) 44.03 0.00 30.46 0.00 39.13 0.00 41. 46 0.00 Pseudo R 2 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04

PAGE 88

88 Table 6 2 Florida, U.S. Tobit model Grapefruit Pummelo Orange Mandarin Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| AGE 0.01 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.30 GENDER 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.87 0.01 0.9 7 0.24 0.45 COLLEGE 0.08 0.79 0.40 0.26 0.17 0.59 0.11 0.73 POSTGRADUATE 0.24 0.60 0.04 0.94 0.25 0.60 0.77 0.11 MEDIANINCOME 0.28 0.37 0.11 0.77 0.01 0.99 0.05 0.90 HIGHINCOME 0.41 0.29 0.26 0.57 0.09 0.84 0.07 0.86 SAFEUSA 0.79 0.00 0.39 0.04 0.72 0.00 0.82 0.00 GFREQ 0.01 0.79 PFREQ 0.08 0.08 OFREQ 0.02 0.60 MFREQ 0.09 0.03 COO 0.68 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.61 0.00 BRAND 0.16 0.13 0.07 0.56 0.14 0.21 0.08 0.44 PUMMELO 0.15 0.68 0.32 0.64 0.14 0.71 0.34 0.39 INTERCEPT 4.62 0.00 7.85 0.00 4.83 0.00 6.34 0.00 / SIGMA 2.27 2.36 2.37 2.30 ( 0.15 ) ( 0.21 ) ( 0.16 ) ( 0.17 ) LR chi 2 (12) 51.39 0.00 51.73 0.00 46.82 0.00 55.07 0.00 Pseudo R 2 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07

PAGE 89

89 Tab le 6 3 France Tobit model Grapefruit Orange Mandarin Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| AGE 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.27 0.01 0.59 GENDER 0.08 0.73 0.15 0.61 0.13 0.69 COLLEGE 0.17 0.45 0.02 0.95 0.11 0.73 POSTGRADUATE 0.66 0.06 0.44 0.3 4 0.73 0.12 MEDIANINCOME 0.34 0.15 0.39 0.23 0.38 0.28 HIGHINCOME 0.49 0.11 0.63 0.13 0.64 0.14 SAFEFRANCE 0.58 0.00 0.43 0.06 0.40 0.10 GFREQ 0.00 0.93 OFREQ 0.06 0.08 MFREQ 0.11 0.01 COO 0.55 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.58 0.00 BRAND 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.09 PUMMELO 0.27 0.30 0.07 0.84 0.15 0.70 INTERCEPT 3.36 0.00 5.14 0.00 6.48 0.00 / SIGMA 1.99 2.30 2.31 ( 0.10 ) ( 0.17 ) ( 0.19 ) LR chi 2 (12) 53.05 0.00 32.52 0.00 39.93 0.00 Pseudo R 2 0.04 0.04 0.05

PAGE 90

90 Table 6 4 Spain Tobit model Grapefruit Pummelo Orange Mandarin Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| AGE 0.00 0.66 0.02 0.29 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.96 GENDER 0.10 0.71 0.48 0.36 0.02 0.94 0.01 0.96 COLLEGE 0.19 0.48 0.45 0.39 0.05 0.87 0.13 0.62 POSTGRADUATE 0.40 0.33 0.28 0.74 0.59 0.21 0.56 0.15 MEDIANINCOME 0.38 0.17 0.04 0.94 0.15 0.66 0.19 0.48 HIGHINCOME 0.49 0.16 0.29 0.68 0.58 0.15 0.35 0.29 SAFESPAIN 0.47 0.00 0.63 0.03 0.06 0.72 0.52 0.00 GFREQ 0.03 0.39 PFREQ 0.11 0.11 OFREQ 0.00 0.95 MFREQ 0.07 0.04 COO 0.32 0.01 0.58 0.01 0.41 0.00 0.44 0.00 BRAND 0.09 0.33 0.08 0.67 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.17 PUMMELO 0.24 0.44 0.25 0.80 0.48 0.23 0.24 0.43 INTERCEPT 3.18 0.00 8.37 0.00 5.79 0.00 4.82 0.00 /SIGMA 2.13 3.97 2.24 1.99 ( 0.14 ) ( 0.27 ) ( 0.19 ) ( 0.13 ) LR chi 2 (12) 20.30 0.04 23.00 0.02 40.10 0.00 36.64 0.00 Pseudo R 2 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04

PAGE 91

91 Table 6 5 Turkey Tobit model Grapefruit Pummelo Orange Ma ndarin Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| AGE 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.61 0.01 0.32 0.01 0.48 GENDER 0.19 0.86 0.04 0.91 0.12 0.74 0.35 0.38 COLLEGE 0.45 0.69 0.22 0.50 0.09 0.82 0.29 0.49 POSTGRADUATE 0.98 0.55 0.13 0.79 0.19 0.73 0.38 0.51 MEDIANINCOME 0.65 0.58 0.32 0.34 0.10 0.79 0.35 0.41 HIGHINCOME 0.13 0.93 0.26 0.53 0.45 0.33 0.30 0.57 SAFETURKEY 2.16 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.83 0.00 0.68 0.00 GFREQ 0.00 0.98 PFREQ 0.03 0.45 OFREQ 0.02 0.62 MFREQ 0.07 0.14 COO 1.47 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.54 0.00 BRAND 0.31 0.40 0.06 0.57 0.08 0.50 0.14 0.30 PUMMELO 1.02 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.48 0.25 0.20 0.68 INTERCEPT 17.37 0.00 4.79 0.00 6.10 0.00 6.85 0.00 /SIGMA 6.70 2.34 2.25 2.46 ( 0.63 ) ( 0.17 ) ( 0.22 ) ( 0.25 ) LR chi 2 (12) 22.58 0.02 31.70 0.00 31.57 0.00 26.57 0.01 Pseudo R 2 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05

PAGE 92

92 Table 6 6 Israel Tobit model Grapefruit Pummelo Orange Mandarin Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| Coef P>|t| A GE 0.02 0.21 0.05 0.21 0.01 0.59 0.03 0.04 GENDER 0.02 0.95 0.51 0.61 0.02 0.95 0.03 0.94 COLLEGE 0.07 0.84 2.02 0.05 0.16 0.58 0.16 0.66 POSTGRADUATE 0.45 0.39 0.82 0.61 0.52 0.22 0.72 0.16 MEDIANINCOME 0.31 0.42 0.61 0.57 0.20 0.50 0.38 0.34 HIGHINCOME 0.74 0.10 0.09 0.94 0.54 0.14 0.34 0.46 SAFEISRAEL 1.10 0.00 0.04 0.94 0.13 0.41 0.97 0.00 GFREQ 0.04 0.30 PFREQ 0.18 0.16 OFREQ 0.03 0.34 MFREQ 0.04 0.32 COO 0.45 0.00 1.65 0.00 0.34 0.01 0.48 0.00 BRAND 0.12 0.35 0.52 0.14 0.06 0.52 0.11 0.36 PUMMELO 0.47 0.30 0.29 0.87 0.41 0.22 0.62 0.19 INTERCEPT 7.44 0.00 13.24 0.00 2.51 0.00 8.15 0.00 /SIGMA 2.35 6.69 2.14 2.33 ( 0.19 ) ( 0.53 ) ( 0.15 ) ( 0.20 ) LR chi 2 (12) 64 .53 0.00 26.19 0.01 15.86 0.15 61.07 0.00 Pseudo R 2 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.09

PAGE 93

93 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION S Summary This thesis is a stud y of European Union ( E U ) willingness to pay ( WTP ) for fruit from different countries, as well as their percep tion s and attitude s Previous research on WTP for fruit safety attribute has mainly focused on pesticide free and organic label fruit in general. In addition, there are some researches about country of origin labeling ( CO OL ) in beef and fruit sector. However, there are few studies citrus fruit and the effect of country of origin ( COO ) on fresh citrus fruit. Therefore, this thesis probe d into the fresh citrus sector so as to provide information for citrus grower or decision maker to make more informed decision. With ever changing consumer attitude and behavior, this thesis will be a great source for decision maker. The study measures E.U. fruit from different countries and the perception of safety and quality attributes of fresh fruit from different fruit and country specific. A T obit model is used to analyze factors tha t are influential to for citrus fruit from five countries and one region Total twenty three T Each model incorporates one country or region with the correspo nding fruit, safety concern factor and demographic factors. The results show that a majority of respondents can identify orange and mandarin but only about half of the respondents can identify grapefruit and pummelo. However, grapefruit and pummelo are see n not significant different from other citrus fruit. Orange

PAGE 94

94 and mandarin are consumed more frequent than grapefruit and pummelo. A higher percentage of consumers eat orange and mandarin daily, while consumers eat grapefruit or pummelo daily is a minority. People usually eat grapefruit and pummelo monthly or bimonthly. French locally grown citrus fruit are perceived as the most likely to be purchased, having the least safety concern, the highest in overall quality and the most expensive among citrus fruit fr om Brazil, China, France, Israel, Spain, the U.S. and Turkey. In contrast, citrus fruit produced in China are perceived as the least likely to be purchased, having the most safety concern, the lowest in overall quality and the least expensive among citrus fruit from Brazil, China, France, Israel, Spain, the U.S. and Turkey. The result s from Tobit model show safety concern for fruit from different countries will significantly affect the E U consumers WTP for grapefruit no matter w here the grapefruit come from. However, safety concern is found to be insignificant for pummelo orange and orange from particular countries. This Moreover safe ty concern factor for mandarin is found significant for the state of Florida, Spain, Turkey and Israel but insignificant for the United States (U.S.) and France. This In addition COO is the only variable that appears to be significant in all models. As a result, we may conclude that of the importance of COO attribute can play an important role in determining their WTP a premium for fruit from different count ries. Implications The findings of this study are significant for citrus fruit growers and fruit marketers that are interested in exporting fresh citrus fruit to the E.U. There are several

PAGE 95

95 implications derive from the findings. First, the finding suggests that United States ( U.S. ) fresh fruit producers, particular Florida grapefruit producers, may target a specific segment in the E.U. by taking the advantage of U.S. grown. Some E U consumers are willing to pay premium for such attribute. Second, by establi sh that safety concern is U consumers may want to know how safe the fruit they consume. This demand side factor may enforce U.S fruit producers to reduce using unnecessary chemical. Even if most demographic factors are insignificant in this study, some of them are still important factors for marketing strategy, especially the weekly food spending decision. Overall, this study adds additional information to the field of consu also helps further understand E U fresh fruit with different COO.

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX QUESTIONAIRE IN ENGLISH Florida Grapefruit English Copy Q1.1 The goal of this research is to determine consumer preferences about c itrus. You will be asked to answer a series of questions about fruit consumption that should take you approximately 10 15 minutes to complete. There are no expected risks or benefits to you for participating in this survey, and you will not receive any co mpensation from the University of Florida for participating. The survey is anonymous and your participation is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time by exiting the survey. If you have questions about the survey, you can cont act Dr. Zhifeng Gao, PO Box 110240, Gainesville, FL 32611, phone 352 392 1826. For questions about your rights as a research participant in the study, you can contact IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 35 2 392 0433.By answering the next question, you are indicating that you voluntarily agree to participate in this survey.

PAGE 97

97 I am the primary shopper (1) I share the respons ibility with another household member (2) I am NOT involved in the food and grocery shopping (3) If I am NOT involved in the fo... Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey Q1.3 In which year were you born? If Which year were you born? Is Greater Than or Eq ual to 1993, Then Skip To End of Survey Q1.4 In the last year, which of the following fruits have you purchased? Grapefruits (1) Apples (2) Oranges (3) Cherries (4) Bananas (5) Grapes (6) Melons (7) Peaches (8) Plums (9) Strawberries (10) Kiwi fruit (11) Mango (12) Pummelo (13) Mandarin (14) All above (15)

PAGE 98

98 Q1.5 Can you identify the following citrus products? Please place the fruits on the left to the corresponding groups on the right. Pummelo Grapefruit Chinese Pummelo Mandarin Orange Q1 .6 Are you familiar with grapefruit? Yes, I've eaten it before, and I can easily distinguish it from other fruits (1) Yes, I tried it before, but not too much (2) Yes, sort of, I've seen it before (3) I've heard of it before, but never seen it, or never pa id attention to it (4) No, I've never heard of it (5) Q1.7 How familiar are you with pummelo? Yes, I've eaten it before, and I can easily distinguish it from other fruits (1) Yes, I tried it before, but not too much (2) Yes, sort of, I've saw it before (3 ) I've heard of it before, but never seen it, or never paid attention to it (4) No, I've never heard of it (5) Q1.8 Are you or any of your family members work in the following industries? Citrus industry (1) Market research (2) None of above (3) If None of above Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

PAGE 99

99 Q2.1 How did you first hear/ know about pummelo? Magazine (1) Radio (2) Television (3) Internet (4) Billboard (5) Friend or relative (6) Display in grocery store (7) Other (8) ____________________

PAGE 100

100 Q2 2 What is the first place or country that comes to your mind when you think of growers of the following fruits: I ha ve no id ea at all (1) ARGE NTINA (2) AUST RALIA (3) BEL IZE (4) BR AZI L (5) CHI NA (6) CU BA (7) CYP RUS (8) FRA NCE (9) HOND URAS (10) ISR AEL (11 ) ITA LY (12 ) JAP AN (13 ) MEX ICO (14) NEW ZEAL AND (15) SO UT H AFR ICA (16) SP AI N (17 ) SWAZI LAND (18) TAI WA N (19) THAIL AND (20) TUR KEY (21) URU GUAY (22) USA/ UNIT ED STAT ES of AME RICA (23) Pum melo (1) Grap efruit (2) Oran ge (3) Mand arin (4)

PAGE 101

101 Answer If What is the first place or country that comes to your min... Grapefruit USA/ UNITED STATES of AMERICA Is Selected Q2.3 Which state in the USA comes to your mind as th e major growing state of grapefruit? Florida (1) California (2) Texas (3) I don't know (4) Answer If What is the first place or country that comes to your min... Orange USA/ UNITED STATES of AMERICA Is Selected Q2.4 Which state in the USA comes to your mind as the major growing state of orange? Florida (1) California (2) Texas (3) I don't know (4)

PAGE 102

102 Q2.5 On average, how often have you eaten the following fruits in the last year? Once about Nev er (1) A Ye ar (2) 11 Mont hs (3) 10 Mont hs (4) 9 Mont hs (5 ) 8 Mont hs (6) 7 Mont hs (7) 6 Mont hs (8) 5 Mont hs (9) 4 Mont hs (10) 3 Mont hs (11) 2 Mont hs (12) 3 Mont hs (13) A Mont h (14) 3 Wee ks (15) 2 Wee ks (16) A Wee k (17) 5 Day s (18) 3 Day s (19) A da y (20 ) Pummel o (1) Grapefr uit (2) Orange (3) Mandari n (4) If Grapefruit Once about N... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey If Pummelo Once about Never Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

PAGE 103

103 Q2.6 How often have you eaten the following fruits last month? Never (1) Once a Month (2) Once Three Weeks (3) Once Two Weeks (4) Once a Week (5) 2 3 Times a Week (6) Once a Day (7) More than Once a Day (8) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4 ) Q2.7 Last year, in what way did you most frequently consume the following fruits that you purchased? Q2.8 Pummelo Eat as fresh (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ Q2.9 Orange Eat as fresh (1) Squeeze for ju ice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ N/A (5) Q2.10 Mandarin Eat as fresh (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ N/A (5)

PAGE 104

104 Q2.11 To what degree do you agree with the following statement about pummelo and what ar e the main reasons for you to purchase pummelo? How do you agree with the following statement Disagree Completely disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither disagree nor agree (3) Agree (4) Completely agree (5) You can select multiple (1) Pummelo is cheaper tha n other citrus fruit (1) Pummelo is easy to prepare (2) Pummelo is good for health (3) Pummelo tastes better than other citrus products (4) Pummelo is easy to store (5) Pummelo has the right size for me or my family to co nsume (6) Pummelo is less juicy than other citrus products (7) Pummelo has more consistent quality than other citrus products (8)

PAGE 105

105 Pummelo is from the country or region that I like (9) Pummelo has better package than other citrus products (10) Pummelo is sweeter than other citrus products (11) Pummelo is easy to find in the market (12) Pummelo is promoted extensively by grocery store (13) For validation purpose, please select Completely Agree for this q uestion (14) If For validation purpose, ple... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

PAGE 106

106 Q2.12 If the price and quality of the fruits remain the same as current in the upcoming year, do you think your purchase of the following fruits will: Increase (1) Keep about the same (2) Decrease (3) Don't know (4) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4) Q2.13 Would you recommend following fruits to your friends or family members? Absolutely, all of the time (1) Most o f the time (2) May or may not (3) Probably not (4) Would never recommend (5) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4)

PAGE 107

107 Q3.1 When you purchase fresh produce, do you read labels regarding product origin, brand and etc. i f they are available? Never (1) Almost Never (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

PAGE 108

108 Q3.2 How important are the following features when buying fresh citrus? Not at all Importan t (1) Very Unimporta nt (2) Unimporta nt (3) Neither Important nor Unimporta nt (4) Importan t (5) Very Importan t (6) Extremel y Importan t (7) Price (1) Freshness (2) Flavor (3) Appearanc e (4) Juiciness (5) Fruit Size (6) Ease of Peeling (7) Package (8) Product Origin (cou ntry or region) (9) Seediness (10) Brand (11) Please Select Very Important for this Question (12) If Please Select Very Importa... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

PAGE 109

109 Q3.3 If all the other conditions are the sa me (quality, appearance, package size, price and etc.), how likely are you going to purchase fresh fruits grown the following countries. Very Unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Undecided (3) Likely (4) Very Likely (5) China (1) France (2) USA (3) Spain (4) Brazil (5) Israel (6) Turkey (7) Q3.4 Do you think there is any safety concerns when you consume fresh fruits produced in the following countries? Please indicate your perceived risk level of fruit from each count ry. Very Safe (1) Low Level Risk (2) Median Level Risk (3) High Level Risk (4) I don't know (5) China (1) France (2) U.S.A. (3) Spain (4) Brazil (5) Israel (6) Turkey (7)

PAGE 110

110 Q3.5 What do you think of the overall quality of the fresh fruits produced in the following countries? Very Low (1) Low (2) Neither low nor high (3) High (4) Very high (5) don't know (6) China (1) France (2) U.S.A. (3) Spain (4) Brazil (5) Israel (6) Turkey (7) Q3.6 What do you think of the average price of the fresh fruits produced in the following countries? Very Low (1) Low (2) Neither low nor high (3) High (4) Very high (5) don't know (6) China (1) France (2) U.S.A. (3) Spain (4) Brazil (5) Israel (6) Turkey (7) Q3.7 Assuming that all the fruits are produced in France and you have enough money to purchase the food you want. If you are in the market for fresh citrus fruit, please rank th e following citrus fruits. 1 most likely -----------4 less likely ______ Grapefruit (1) ______ Oranges (2) ______ Pummelo (3) ______ Mandarin (4)

PAGE 111

111 Q3.8 Assuming that all other conditions are the same (price, quality, etc) please indicate the likelihood that you will purchase the grapefruit from the following countries or regions. Very Unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Undecided (3) Likely (4) Very Likely (5) Florida, U.S.A (1) France (2) The U.S.A (3) Turkey (4) China (5) Spain ( 6) Israel (7) Brazil (8) Q3.9 Assuming that all other conditions are the same (price, quality, etc), please indicate the likelihood that you will purchase the pummelo from the following countries or regions. Very Unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Undecided (3) Likely (4) Very Likely (5) Florida, U.S.A (1) Turkey (2) The U.S.A (3) Israel (4) China (5) Spain (6) Brazil (7) Q3.10 Have you eaten or heard grapefruit from Florida, U.S.A.? Yes, I've heard of it, and eaten it at least once (1) Yes, but I've only heard of it, never try it before (2) No, I've never heard or tried it before (3) I don't know (4)

PAGE 112

112 Answer If Have you eaten or heard grapefruit from Florida, U.S.A.? Yes, I've heard of it, and eat en it at least once Is Selected Or Have you eaten or heard grapefruit from Florida, U.S.A.? Yes, but I've only heard of it, never try it before Is Selected Q3.11 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about fresh grapefruit from Fl orida, U.S.A. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) It is of premium quality (1) It is good for dieting and weight loss (2) It can boost energy (3) It can improve the appearance o f my skin (4) It has better quality and safer than grapefruit from other countries. (5) I prefer fresh grapefruit from Florida to grapefruit from other region or countries. (6)

PAGE 113

113 Q3.12 Have you eaten or heard pummelo from China? Yes, I' ve heard of it, and eaten it at least once (1) Yes, but I've only heard of it, never try it before (2) No, I've never heard or tried it before (3) I don't know (4)

PAGE 114

114 Answer If Have you eaten or heard pummelo from China? Yes, I've heard of it, and eaten it at least once Is Selected Or Have you eaten or heard pummelo from China? Yes, but I've only heard of it, never try it before Is Selected Q3.13 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about fresh pummelo from China? Strongly Disagr ee (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) It is of premium quality (1) It is good for dieting and weight loss (2) It can boost energy (3) It can improve the appearance of my skin (4) It has bet ter quality and safer than pummelo from other countries or regions (5) I prefer fresh pummelo from China to pummelo from other regions or countries. (6)

PAGE 115

115 Q3.14 What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three months? Pummelo (1) Grape fruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4) None of them (5) All of them (6) If None of them Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... None of them Is Not Selected Q3.15 With your best estimation how much did you pay for the following fruits you bought last time? Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... Grapefruit Is Selected Or What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... All of them Is Selected Q3 .16 Grapefruit The price I paid is (EU/kg) (1) The price I paid is (1) Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... Pummelo Is Selected Or What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... All of them Is Selecte d Q3.17 Pummelo The price I paid is (EU/kg) (1) The price I paid is (1)

PAGE 116

116 Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... Orange Is Selected Or What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... All of them Is Selecte d Q3.18 Orange The price I paid is (EU/kg) (1) The price I paid is (1) Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... Mandarin Is Selected Or What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... All of them Is Select ed Q3.19 Mandarin The price I paid is (EU/kg) (1) The price I paid is (1)

PAGE 117

117 Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... None of them Is Not Selected Q3.20 Do you know where the citrus fruits that you bought last time were produced? Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... Grapefruit Is Selected Or What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... All of them Is Selected Q3.21 Grapefruit I have no idea at all (1) ___________________ ARGENTINA (2) AUSTRALIA (18) BELIZE (4) Click to write Choice 5 (5) BRAZIL (6) CHINA (7) CUBA (8) CYPRUS (9) FRANCE (10) HONDURAS (11) ISREAL (12) ITALY (13) JAPAN (14) MEXICO (15) NEW ZEALAND (16) SOUTH AFRICA (17) SPAIN (3) SWAZILAND (19) TAIWAN (20) THAILAND (21) TURKEY (22) URUGUAY (23) USA/UNITED STATES of AMERICA (24)

PAGE 118

118 Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... Pummelo Is Selected Or What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... All of them Is Sel ected Q3.22 Pummelo I have no idea at all (1) ____________________ ARGENTINA (2) AUSTRALIA (18) BELIZE (4) Click to write Choice 5 (5) BRAZIL (6) CHINA (7) CUBA (8) CYPRUS (9) FRANCE (10) HONDURAS (11) ISREAL (12) ITALY (13) JAPAN (14) MEXICO (15) NEW ZEALAND (16) SOUTH AFRICA (17) SPAIN (3) SWAZILAND (19) TAIWAN (20) THAILAND (21) TURKEY (22) URUGUAY (23) USA/UNITED STATES of AMERICA (24)

PAGE 119

119 Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... Orange Is Selected Or What citrus fru its have you purchased in the last three m... All of them Is Selected Q3.23 Orange I have no idea at all (1) ____________________ ARGENTINA (2) AUSTRALIA (18) BELIZE (4) Click to write Choice 5 (5) BRAZIL (6) CHINA (7) CUBA (8) CYPRUS (9) FRANCE (10) HO NDURAS (11) ISREAL (12) ITALY (13) JAPAN (14) MEXICO (15) NEW ZEALAND (16) SOUTH AFRICA (17) SPAIN (3) SWAZILAND (19) TAIWAN (20) THAILAND (21) TURKEY (22) URUGUAY (23) USA/UNITED STATES of AMERICA (24)

PAGE 120

120 Answer If What citrus fruits have you purchas ed in the last three m... Mandarin Is Selected Or What citrus fruits have you purchased in the last three m... All of them Is Selected Q3.24 Mandarin I have no idea at all (1) ____________________ ARGENTINA (2) AUSTRALIA (18) BELIZE (4) Click to write Ch oice 5 (5) BRAZIL (6) CHINA (7) CUBA (8) CYPRUS (9) FRANCE (10) HONDURAS (11) ISREAL (12) ITALY (13) JAPAN (14) MEXICO (15) NEW ZEALAND (16) SOUTH AFRICA (17) SPAIN (3) SWAZILAND (19) TAIWAN (20) THAILAND (21) TURKEY (22) URUGUAY (23) USA/UNITED ST ATES of AMERICA (24) Q3.25 Please read the instruction carefully before you proceed. Suppose in the grocery store there are fruits from different countries or regions, and you have purchased 1kg fruits produced in China. In the following question please indicate whether you are willing to pay a price premium for the fruits produced in other regions than the fruits from China. If you are, please indicate how much more (EU/KG) you are willing to pay for the fruit from other country or region. If you are not, please indicate how much (EU/KG) you need to be paid to accept the fruits from other countries or regions to trade your fruits produced in China. If you don't care where the fruits are produced, please select "I don't care".

PAGE 121

121 Q3.26 Co mpared to grapefruit produced in China, are you willing to pay for the grapefruit from the following countries or regions? If yes, how much (EU/KG) are you willing to pay for the fruit from other countries or regions? If not, how much (EU/KG) do you need t o be paid to trade your fruit from China for the fruit from other countries or regions? If you don't care where the fruits are produced, please select "I don't care". Q3.27 The USA Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.28 France Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.29 Turkey Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.30 Florida of USA Yes (EU/K G) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.31 Israel Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.32 Brazil Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) _____ _______________ I don't care (3)

PAGE 122

122 Q3.33 Spain Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.34 Compared to pummelo produced in China, are you willing to pay for the pummelo from the following countries or reg ions? If yes, how much (EU/KG) are you willing to pay for the fruit from other countries or regions ?If not, how much (EU/KG) do you need to be paid to trade your fruit from China for the fruit from other countries or regions?If you don't care where the fr uits are produced, please select "I don't care". Q3.35 Brazil Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.36 USA Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q 3.37 Turkey Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.38 Florida of USA Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.39 Israel Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________ ________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3)

PAGE 123

123 Q3.40 Spain Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.41 Compared to orange produced in China, are you willing to pay for the orange from th e following countries or regions? If yes, how much (EU/KG) are you willing to pay for the fruit from other countries or regions? If not, how much (EU/KG) do you need to be paid to trade your fruit from China for the fruit from other countries or regions? I f you don't care where the fruits are produced, please select "I don't care". Q3.42 France Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.43 USA Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ___________ _________ I don't care (3) Q3.44 Turkey Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.45 Florida of USA Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.46 Spain Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3)

PAGE 124

124 Q3.47 Brazil Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.48 Israel Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.49 Compared to mandarin produced in China, are you willing to pay for the mandarin from the following countries or regions? If yes, how much (EU/KG) are you willing to pay for the fruit from other countries or regions? If not, how much (EU/KG) do you need to be paid to trade your fruit from China for the fruit from other countries or regions? If you don't care where the fruits are produced, please select "I don't care". Q3.50 France Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________ ________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.51 USA Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.52 Turkey Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don' t care (3) Q3.53 Florida of USA Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3)

PAGE 125

125 Q3.54 Israel Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.55 Brazil Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3) Q3.56 Spain Yes (EU/KG) (1) ____________________ NO (EU/KG) (2) ____________________ I don't care (3)

PAGE 126

126 Q4.1 What is your gender? Male (1) Female (2) Q4.2 Which region are you fro m? Alsace (1) Aquitaine (2) Auvergne (3) Basse Normandie (4) Bourgogne (5) Bretagne (6) Centre (7) Champagne Ardenne (8) Corse (9) Franche Comt (10) Guadeloupe (11) Guyane (12) Haute Normandie (13) Ile de France (14) La Runion (15) Languedoc Roussillon ( 16) Limousin (17) Lorraine (18) Martinique (19) Mayotte (20) Midi Pyrnes (21) Nord Pas de Calais (22) Pays de la Loire (23) Picardie (24) Poitou Charentes (25) Provence Alpes Cte d'Azur (26) Rhne Alpes (27)

PAGE 127

127 Q4.3 Please indicate which of the followin g categories best describes the highest educational level you have completed. Less than high school (1) High school degree or equivalent (2) Some college (3) Four year college degree (4) Postgraduate (MS, PhD, MD etc. ) (5) Trade/technical school (6) Other (7) ____________________ Don't know (8) Q4.4 What is your current employment status? Full time (1) Part time (2) Currently not working (3) Retired (4) Student (5) Other (6) Q4.5 How many people currently live in your household including yourself? 1 2 (1) 3 4 (2) 5 6 (3) 7 8 (4) 9 or above (5) Q4.6 Please indicate your marital status: Single (1) Married (2) Separated (3) Divorced (4) Widowed (5) Never Married (6)

PAGE 128

128 Q4.7 How many children age 18 or younger currently live in your household? None (1 ) 1 (2) 2 (3) 3 (4) 4 or more (5) Q4.8 Please indicate your estimated household income: Do not know (10) Q4.9 Approximately how much per week does your family spend on food? Abov Don't know (12)

PAGE 129

129 Q5.1 How did you first hear/ know about pummelo? Magazine (1) Radio (2) Television (3) Internet (4) Billboard (5) Friend or relative (6) Display in grocery store (7) Other (8) ____________________ Q5.2 How did you first hea r/ know about grapefruit? Magazine (1) Radio (2) Television (3) Internet (4) Billboard (5) Friend or relative (6) Display in grocery store (7) Other (8) ____________________

PAGE 130

130 Q5.3 What is the first place or country that comes to your mind when you think of growers of the following fruits: I ha ve no id ea at all (1) ARGE NTINA (2) AUST RALIA (3) BEL IZE (4) BR AZI L (5) CHI NA (6) CU BA (7) CYP RUS (8) FRA NCE (9) HOND URAS (10) ISR AEL (11 ) ITA LY (12 ) JAP AN (13 ) MEX ICO (14) NEW ZEAL AND (15) SO UT H AFR ICA (16) SP AI N ( 17 ) SWAZI LAND (18) TAI WA N (19) THAIL AND (20) TUR KEY (21) URU GUAY (22) USA/ UNIT ED STAT ES of AME RICA (23) Pum melo (1) Grap efruit (2) Oran ge (3) Mand arin (4)

PAGE 131

131 A nswer If What is the first place or country that comes to your min... Grapefruit USA/ United States of America Is Selected Q5.4 Which state in the USA comes to your mind as the major growing state of grapefruit? Florida (1) California (2) Texas (3) I don 't know (4) Answer If What is the first place or country that comes to your min... Orange USA/ UNITED STATES of AMERICA Is Selected Q5.5 Which state in the USA comes to your mind as the major growing state of orange? Florida (1) California (2) Texas (3 ) I don't know (4)

PAGE 132

132 Q5.6 On average, how often have you eaten the following fruits in the last year? Once about Nev er (1) A Ye ar (2) 11 Mont hs (3) 10 Mont hs (4) 9 Mont hs (5) 8 Mont hs (6) 7 Mont hs (7) 6 Mont hs (8) 5 Mont hs (9) 4 Mont hs (10) 3 Mont hs (1 1) 2 Mont hs (12) 3 Mont hs (13) A Mont h (14) 3 Wee ks (15) 2 Wee ks (16) A Wee k (17) 5 Day s (18) 3 Day s (19) A da y (20 ) Pummel o (1) Grapefr uit (2) Orange (3) Mandari n (4) If Grapefruit Once about N... Is Selected, Then Skip To End of SurveyIf Pummelo Once about Never Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

PAGE 133

133 Q5.7 How often have you eaten the following fruits last month? Never (1) Once a Month (2) Once Three Weeks (3) Once Two Weeks (4) Once a Week (5) 2 3 Times a Week (6) Once a Day (7) More than Once a Day (8) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4) Q5.8 Last year, in what way did you most frequently consume the foll owing fruits that you purchased? Q5.9 Pummelo Eat as fresh (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ Q5.10 Grapefruit Eat as fresh (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ Q5.11 Orange Eat as fres h (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ N/A (5)

PAGE 134

134 Q5.12 Mandarin Eat as fresh (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ N/A (5) Q5.13 Are grapefruit and pummelo the same? Yes, they are almost the same, and they could be replaced by each other (1) Probably yes, I can't tell the difference between them, they might be replaced by each other (2) I am not sure at all. Probably no, I can tell the difference, and it is hard for me to replace grapefruit by pummelo when I want to buy grapefruit (3) Probably no, I can tell the difference, and it is hard for me to replace grapefruit by pummelo when I want to buy grapefruit No I think they are quite different, and I don't think they can replace each other at all (4) No, I think they are quite different, and I don't think they can replace each other at all (5)

PAGE 135

135 Q5.14 To what degree do you agree with the following statement about pummelo and what are the main reasons for you to purchase pummelo? How do you ag ree with the following statement Disagree Completely disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither disagree nor agree (3) Agree (4) Completely agree (5) You can select multiple (1) Pummelo is cheaper than other citrus fruits (1) Pummelo is easy to prepare (2 ) Pummelo is good for health (3) Pummelo tastes better than other citrus products (4) Pummelo is easy to store (5) Pummelo has the right size for me or my family to consume (6) Pummelo is less juicy than other citrus prod ucts (7) Pummelo has more consistent quality than other citrus products (8)

PAGE 136

136 Pummelo is from the country or region that I like (9) Pummelo has better package than other citrus products (10) Pummelo is sweeter than other citrus pr oducts (11) Pummelo is easy to find in the market (12) Pummelo is promoted extensively by grocery store (13) For validation purpose, please select Completely Agree for this question (14) If For validation purpose, ple... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

PAGE 137

137 Q5.15 To what degree do you agree with the following statement about grapefruit and what are the main reasons for you to purchase grapefruit? How do you agree with the following statement Disagree Completely disag ree (1) Disagree (2) Neither disagree nor agree (3) Agree (4) Completely agree (5) You can select multiple (1) Grapefruit is cheaper than other citrus fruits (1) Grapefruit is easy to prepare (2) Grapefruit is good for health (3) Grap efruit tastes better than other citrus products (4) Grapefruit is easy to store (5) Grapefruit has the right size for me or my family to consume (6) Grapefruit is less juicy than other citrus products (7) Grapefruit has more con sistent quality than other citrus products (8)

PAGE 138

138 Grapefruit is from the country or region that I like (9) Grapefruit has better package than other citrus products (10) Grapefruit is sweeter than other citrus products (11) Grapefru it is easy to find in the market (12) Grapefruit is promoted extensively by grocery store (13) For validation purpose, please select Completely Agree for this question (14) If For validation purpose, ple... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

PAGE 139

139 Q5.16 Based on your experience with grapefruit and pummelo, for the following characters of fruits, please indicate the fruit that you like by moving the bar left and right.50 means you are indifferent between grapefruit and pummelo. __ ____ Flavor (1) ______ Sweetness (2) ______ Bitterness (3) ______ Ease of prepare (4) ______ For validation purpose, please move the bar right to100 (5) ______ Shape (6) ______ Color (7) ______ Size (8) ______ Ease of peeling (9) ______ Price (10) ______ O verall (11) If For validation purpose, p... Is Not Equal to 100, Then Skip To End of Survey Q5.17 If the price and quality of the fruits remain the same as current in the upcoming year, do you think your purchase of the following fruits will: Increa se (1) Keep about the same (2) Decrease (3) Don't know (4) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4) Q5.18 Would you recommend following fruits to your friends or family members? Absolutely, all of the time (1) Most of the time (2) May or may not (3) Probably not (4) Would never recommend (5) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4)

PAGE 140

140 Q5.19 If both grapefruit and pummelo are of the same quality, produced in the same country, and you have p urchased a 1kg pummelo, are you willing to pay additional money to trade your pummelo for a 1kg grapefruit? Yes (1) No (2) Answer If If both grapefruit and pummelo are of the same quality, p... Yes Is Selected Q5.20 You stated that you are willing to pay more to trade your 1 kg pummelo for grapefruit. How much you are willing to pay to trade your pummelo for grapefruit? EU (1) Trade your Pummelo for Grapefruit? (1) Answer If If both grapefruit and pummelo are of the same quality, p... No Is Selec ted Q5.21 You stated that you are not willing to pay more to trade your 1kg pummelo for grapefruit. How much you need to be paid to trade your Pummelo for Grapefruit? EU (1) Trade your Pummelo for Grapefruit? (1)

PAGE 141

141 Q6.1 How did you first hear/ know about pummelo? Magazine (1) Radio (2) Television (3) Internet (4) Billboard (5) Friend or relative (6) Display in grocery store (7) Other (8) ____________________

PAGE 142

142 Q6.2 What is the first place or country that comes to your mind when you think of growers of the following fruits: I ha ve no id ea at all (1) ARGE NTINA (2) AUST RALIA (3) BEL IZE (4) BR AZI L (5) CHI NA (6) CU BA (7) CYP RUS (8) FRA NCE (9) HOND URAS (10) ISR AEL (11 ) ITA LY (12 ) JAP AN (13 ) MEX ICO (14) NEW ZEAL AND (15) SO UT H AFR ICA (16) SP AI N (17 ) SWAZI L AND (18) TAI WA N (19) THAIL AND (20) TUR KEY (21) URU GUAY (22) USA/ UNIT ED STAT ES of AME RICA (23) Pum melo (1) Grap efruit (2) Oran ge (3) Mand arin (4)

PAGE 143

143 Answer If W hat is the first place or country that comes to your min... Grapefruit USA/ United States of America Is Selected Q6.3 Which state in the USA comes to your mind as the major growing state of grapefruit? Florida (1) California (2) Texas (3) I don't know (4 ) Answer If What is the first place or country that comes to your min... Orange USA/ United States of America Is Selected Q6.4 Which state in the USA comes to your mind as the major growing state of orange? Florida (1) California (2) Texas (3) I don't know (4)

PAGE 144

144 Q6.5 On average, how often have you eaten the following fruits in the last year? Once about Nev er (1) A Ye ar (2) 11 Mont hs (3) 10 Mont hs (4) 9 Mont hs (5) 8 Mont hs (6) 7 Mont hs (7) 6 Mont hs (8) 5 Mont hs (9) 4 Mont hs (10) 3 Mont hs (11) 2 Mont hs (12) 3 Mont hs (13) A Mont h (14) 3 Wee ks (15) 2 Wee ks (16) A Wee k (17) 5 Day s (18) 3 Day s (19) A da y (20 ) Pummel o (1) Grapefr uit (2) Orange (3) Mandari n (4) If Pummelo Once about Never Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of SurveyIf Grapefruit Once about N... Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

PAGE 145

145 Q6.6 How often have you eaten the following fruits in the last month? Never (1) Once a Month (2) Once Three Weeks (3 ) Once Two Weeks (4) Once a Week (5) 2 3 Times a Week (6) Once a Day (7) More than Once a Day (8) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4) Q6.7 Last year, in what way did you most frequently consume the fol lowing fruits that you purchased? Q6.8 Grapefruit Eat as fresh (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ Q6.9 Orange Eat as fresh (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ N/A (5) Q6.10 Mandarin Ea t as fresh (1) Squeeze for juice (2) In salad (3) Other (4) ____________________ N/A (5)

PAGE 146

146 Q6.11 To what degree do you agree with the following statement about grapefruit and what are the main reasons for you to purchase grapefruit? How do you agree with t he following statement Disagree Completely disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither disagree nor agree (3) Agree (4) Completely agree (5) You can select multiple (1) Grapefruit is cheaper than other citrus fruits (1) Grapefruit is easy to prepare (2) Grapefruit is good for health (3) Grapefruit tastes better than other citrus products (4) Grapefruit is easy to store (5) Grapefruit has the right size for me or my family to consume (6) Grapefruit is less juicy than other citrus products (7) Grapefruit has more consistent quality than other citrus products (8)

PAGE 147

147 Grapefruit is from the country or region that I like (9) Grapefruit has better package than other citrus products (10) Grapefruit is sweet er than other citrus products (11) Grapefruit is easy to find in the market (12) Grapefruit is promoted extensively by grocery store (13) For validation purpose, please select Completely Agree for this question (14)

PAGE 148

148 Q6.12 If the price and quality of the fruits remain the same as current, in the upcoming year, do you think your purchase of the following fruits will : Increase (1) Keep about the same (2) Decrease (3) Don't know (4) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange ( 3) Mandarin (4) Q6.13 Would you recommend following fruits to your friends or family members? Absolutely, all of the time (1) Most of the time (2) May or may not (3) Probably not (4) Would never recommend (5) Pummelo (1) Grapefruit (2) Orange (3) Mandarin (4)

PAGE 149

149 LIST OF REFERENCES Selected Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics A ssociation, Annual Meeting, August 8 11, 1999, Nashville, Tennessee Products: A Case AIR CAT workshop Octo ber 22, 1998, Dijon, France Hort. (ISHS) 429 (1996):157 164 Bergman, K., Dealing with Consumer Uncertainty: Public Relations in the Food Sector Springer Verla g, Berlin (2002) free Fresh The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 3(3) (2000): 297 310 Botonaki, A., K. Polymeros, E. Tsakiridou a British Food Journal 108(2) (2006): 77 90 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 52 (1956): 384 389 Food & Agricultural Marketing Policy Section Conference Emerging Roles for Food Labels: March 20 21, 2003, Washington, D. C. Effects of Food Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption WRS 01 1 (2001): 55 66 Christman S. 2009. Citrus maxima Floridata internet address: http://www.floridata.com/ref/c/citr_max.cfm Retrieved April 1, 2012. Combris, P., A.S. Pinto, A. Fragata and E. Giraud es Taste Beat Food Contributed Paper March 8 10, 2007, Bologna, Italy Comm ission of the European Communities. White Paper on Food Safety.COM (1999)

PAGE 150

150 Revista Espanola de Economia A graria 181 (1997): 183 208 Torn after Choice: How Explicit Choices can Implicitly Shape Preferences for Psychological Science 21 (2010): 489 493. Darby, K., M.T. Batte Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting July 2 3 26, 2006, Long Beach, California Consumer Perception of Product Quality and the Country of Journal of International Marketing 2(2) (1994): 49 62 Journal of Consumer Psychology 7 (1998): 131¨C158. European Fresh Produce Association. 2011. Vegetable Imports and Exports in 2010 http://www.freshfel.org/docs/press_releases/20110422_ _EU_fv_import_and_export_trade_trends.pdf Retrieved January 20, 2012 Favourable and Unfavourable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24 (2002): 75 9. Economics of Food Economic Re search Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Economic Report No. 793 Grunert, K.G., European Review of Agricultural Economics 32(3) (2005): 369 391 Heuvel, T.V.D., H.V. Trijp, C.V. Product Offering to Consumer Needs; Inclusion of Credence Attributes and The Food Quality and Preference 18(2)(2007): 296 304 Paper Presented at the 16th Graduate Students Research Conference, January 6 8, 2011, Houston, Texas about Foreign Products Journal of International Consumer Marketing 2 (2) (1989), pp. 7 24

PAGE 151

151 International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 29 (5) (2001): 236 246 Acta Hort. (ISHS) 604(2003):345 352 Knight, J.G., D.K. Holdsworth and D.W. Country Of Origin and Choice of Food Imports: An In Journal of International Business Studies 38 (2007): 107 125 Consumer Willingness to Pay for Improved Attributes of Fresh Vegetables: A Comparison Western Agricultural Economics Association, Selected Papers of the 1997 Annual Meeting July 13 16, 1997, Reno/Sparks, Nevada Lichtenstein, S. and P. S lovic, The Construction of Preference. Cambridge University Press, New York (2006) Preferences for Organic and Eco Journal of Agricultural and Resource Ec onomics 26(2) (2001): 404 416 Country Of Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 28(2) (2003): 287 301 E To Pay for Country Of Origin Labels in Fresh Apples and Tomatoes: A Double Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Associa tion Annual Meeting July 24 27, 2005, Providence, Rhode Island onsumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Journal of Food Distribution Research 34(3) (2003): 95 102 ality of Stored `Marsh' and `Ruby Red' Grapefruit after High temperature, Forced HortScience 26(9) (1991): 1188 1191 Morton, J.F., Fruits of Warm Climates Florida Flair Books, Miami, Florida U.S.A. (1987) OECD Publishing. 2011. Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Internet address: http://www.oecd ilibrary.org/social issues migration health/society at a glanc e 2011_soc_glance 2011 en Retrieved February 4, 2012

PAGE 152

152 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30(2002): 240 249. Olson, J.C. and J. Jacoby the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research (1972) 167 179 Poole, N. and L. Baron, "Consumer Awareness of Citrus Fruit Attributes", British Food Journal 98(1) (1996): 23 28 POULTER S. 2009. Daily Mail, internet address: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article 1195818/Get ready basketful wonky veg EU ban odd shapes lifted.html Retrieved January 20, 2012 rand of Selected Sweeter Citriculture: Proceedings of the Sixth International Citrus Congress (1988): 1645 1650 Social Science Information 44 (2005): 695 729. Sharot, T., B. De Journal of Neuroscience 29 (2009): 3760 3765 U.K. Business Link. 2012. Food Labelling and Packaging in International Trade internet address: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1080034063&type=RE SOURCES Retrieved January 20, 2012 U.K. Food Standards Agency 2008. ernet address: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2008/nov/originguidance Retrieved January 20, 2012 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency t address: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the world factbook/geos/fr.html Retrieved April 1, 2012 van der Lans, I. A., K. van Ittersum, A. De Cicco, and M. Region of Origin And EU Certificates of Origin in Consumer Evaluation of Food European Review of Agricultural Economics 28(4) (2001): 451 477 mage Journal of Business Research 56(3) (2003): 215: 226.

PAGE 153

153 at AAEA Food & Emerging Roles for Food Labels: Inform, Protect, Persuade 21, 2003, Washington, D. C. Judgements in Multi Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(2) (1991): 105 113 Weiss, E. A. Essential oil crops CAB International Eaglemont, Victoria, Australia (1997) lity, and Value: A Means End Journal of Marketing 52(3) (1998): 2 22

PAGE 154

154 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sing was born and grew up in Hong Kong. The author finished t he Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination in 2000 and went on to study in Australia for six years In 2006, Sing obtained the degree of Bachelor of Economics at the University of Western Australia. After working in the financial industry for five years Sing decided to further his studies of economics. Since January 2011, he has begun his agricultural economics study at the University of Florida. During his studies at UF, he works as a teaching assistant. Sing will be awarded the degree of Master of Science in May 2012.